Moving Beyond the Influence of Neighbors on Policy Diffusion: Local Influences on Decisions to Conduct Property Tax Reassessment in New York
| Author | Tae Ho Eom,Soojin Kim,Hyunhoe Bae |
| Published date | 01 July 2017 |
| Date | 01 July 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017706754 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
American Review of Public Administration
2017, Vol. 47(5) 599 –614
Moving Beyond the Influence of Neighbors
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
on Policy Diffusion: Local Influences on
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017706754
DOI: 10.1177/0275074017706754
Decisions to Conduct Property
journals.sagepub.com/home/arp
Tax Reassessment in New York
Tae Ho Eom1, Hyunhoe Bae1, and Soojin Kim2
Abstract
Over the past few decades, research on policy adoption and diffusion has grown rapidly. Despite the relatively large number
of publications, however, little attention has been paid to the important question of why a policy is differently implemented
or diffused across governments. To answer this question and improve our understanding of local policy choice beyond widely
cited neighboring influences, we closely examine the roles of three main policy actors—internal actors, external actors,
and go-betweens—in the local policy diffusion process, drawing particularly upon property tax reassessment scenarios. In
addition, we focus on nested institutional arrangements, including form of government and type of property tax assessor, that
affect the policy decisions of internal actors. Using data on cities and towns in New York State for 1993-2010, we estimate
event history models of property tax reassessment activities. Our findings reveal that regional interactions with neighbors
that have already adopted the policy and top-down go-betweens through positive inducements can help facilitate property
tax reassessment across municipalities. Reformed municipal governments in the council-manager form, along with appointed
assessors, are also most likely to adopt reassessment policy frequently, compared with other institutional arrangements.
Overall, this study advances the policy diffusion literature by exploring the roles of different influences through a more
detailed, broader approach.
Keywords
policy diffusion, institutional arrangements, local policy choice, property tax reassessment
Introduction
question—why a policy is differently implemented or dif-
fused across governments—still remains underexplored.
Who is involved in the policy adoption process and how a
Moreover, most studies have focused solely on policy adop-
policy is being adopted are the controversial subjects, as well
tion rationales rather than detailed, broader approaches of the
as salient empirical questions, that have long been addressed
policy diffusion process (Douglas et al., 2015; Füglister,
in the policy adoption and diffusion literature. According to
2012). In particular, it is notable that these studies have tended
Mohr (1969, p. 111), the propensity of innovation1 (that is,
to rely heavily on the standard policy innovation model of
the probability of policy adoption) is likely to rely on the
Berry and Berry (1990) for their conceptual and analytical
interplay of motivation to innovate, obstacles against innova-
logic. In their seminal works on policy adoption, Berry and
tion, and resource availability. Among them, motivation to
Berry (1990, 1992) have viewed both internal determinants
innovate has received increasing scrutiny. To pursue this line
of and (external) regional influences on a state’s likelihood of
of inquiry, to date, much scholarly attention has been paid to
innovation together, which appears to make a great deal of
such issues as the state lottery (Berry & Berry, 1990; Filer,
sense for providing a better understanding of the dynamic
Maok, & Uze, 1988; Jensen, 2003), state tax (Berry & Berry,
1992), education, welfare, and civil rights (Gray, 1973),
charter schools (Renzulli, & Roscigno, 2005; Zhang & Yang,
1Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2008), e-government ( Lee, Chang, & Berry, 2011), drug
2Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
courts (Douglas, Raudla, & Hartley, 2015), and pay-for-per-
Corresponding Author:
formance (Ingraham, 1993).
Hyunhoe Bae, Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University,
Although the scopes and contexts of previous research
134 Sinchon-Dong, Seodaemun-Gu, Yonhee Hall 213, Seoul, Korea.
vary across policy and public service areas, a significant
Email: hhbae@yonsei.ac.kr
600
American Review of Public Administration 47(5)
process of policy adoption or change. They also have detailed
local decisions of property tax reassessment policy adoption
the two main factors: While the internal factors represent
appears to be worthwhile. Moreover, in the context of public
political, economic, and social characteristics embedded in
finance and management, it is important for local govern-
the government, the regional diffusion factors represent exter-
ments to have an accurate prediction of their financial rev-
nal pressure outside the government but in adjacent localities.
enues, not only to smooth revenue volatility in the short
Interestingly, between the two, it would appear that the exist-
term but also to achieve financial stability in the long term.
ing literature has focused to a large degree on the influence of
Thus, from the closest standpoint of the citizens they serve,
other jurisdictions (neighbors) who have already adopted a
local governments and actors have enough reason to devote
policy (here, external factors or actors).
time to implementing reassessments of taxable properties
Given that there is a relative scarcity of diffusion-oriented
frequently. It is expected that such policy decisions and the
research beyond the existing standardized approach, it is
subsequent outcomes will help ensure that financial
necessary to make an in-depth examination and obtain addi-
resources are efficiently monitored (managed) in response
tional knowledge of the complex policy diffusion process.
to socioeconomic and demographic changes in the cities and
Thus, more empirical research is required to examine other
other localities.
factors, beyond the widely observed internal and external
This article is structured as follows: The next section
factors (actors) affecting a policy adoption, that can increase
begins with the background of property tax assessment pol-
or decrease the likelihood of policy diffusion in a broader
icy and explains the case of NYS. The second section pro-
manner. From this perspective, this study attempted to apply
vides the conceptual framework of this research to examine
recent theoretical developments from policy adoptions in
the relationships between a set of factors and the likelihood
expanding the typical dichotomous characterization of pol-
of implementing frequent property tax reassessment at the
icy innovation, to reach a more thorough understanding of
local level. The third section discusses data collection and
policy diffusion.
measurements for the analysis. The fourth section presents
First, we focused on another main factor referred to as
the empirical results. Finally, the article closes with a brief
go-betweens (other actors potentially influencing local
discussion of the findings and their implications for policy-
adoption decisions), as described in recent scholarship
making and management.
(Douglas et al., 2015; Füglister, 2012; Graham, Shipan, &
Volden, 2013; Karch, 2007). Specifically, the role of top-
Background of Property Tax
down go-betweens that exist in the hierarchical state-local
Assessment Policy and the Case of NYS
governance relations in policy diffusion was analyzed in this
study. In addition, we took a further step by looking at the
Given that property tax is basically levied on two types of
dynamics of the nested institutional arrangements2 that
property—land and permanent structures (mostly houses)—
affect the policy decisions made by internal actors at the
at large (Zodrow, 2001), it has a number of advantages as a
local level. As with McCabe and Feiock’s (2005) analytical
local tax such as immobility, high visibility, stability, ease of
approach, a model of nested institutions that proposes two-
administering (collecting), and a broad tax base. Yet it has
layered institutional differences influencing property tax
also been considered politically vulnerable and traditionally
reassessment policy was outlined in this research: (a) mayor-
regressive in a partial-equilibrium framework (Netzer, 1966;
council versus council-manager government and (b) elected
Wassmer, 1993; Zodrow, 2001).3 These unique characteris-
versus appointed property tax assessor. By focusing on the
tics of property tax point to a widely accepted recognition
effect of nested institutional arrangements on local policy
that property tax is the most unpopular tax as well as an
diffusion, we attempted to shed light on the determinants of
unfair one (Eom, 2008; Fisher, 1996).
local governments’ decision differentials across different
Property tax, unlike other taxes, requires assessment pro-
governance structures.
cesses through which the taxable value of residential and com-
This study essentially aims to answer the following ques-
mercial property is determined and monitored by assessors
tion: how does a set of factors inherent in the policy envi-
rather than observed from market transactions (Eom, 2008).
ronment correlate with local policy diffusion over time and
According to Mikesell (1980), valuation is the heart of prop-
...
To continue reading
Request your trial