Diffusion and decision-making: The spread of the state enterprise zones

This study examined information diffusion and its impact on decisionmaking in five states, assessing: (1) how "informed" the process of decisionmaking was; and (2) how well states fit along a continuum of decisionmaking models (from the rational-comprehensive model to organized anarchy). Relationships between information diffusion and decisionmaking were explored through case studies of the adoption of the enterprise zone program in five states: Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Massachusetts.;Agenda-setting processes in all five states resembled organized anarchy. This finding can be explained by the diffusion of the enterprise zones as a "policy label", for a loosely-defined set of policies addressing the problems of distressed areas. Various incentives to adopt this generic solution precluded the search for and consideration of other alternatives that would be expected in agenda-setting through the rational-comprehensive model or bounded rationality. Yet the malleable nature of the policy meant that states still had to define through policy formulation exactly what their "enterprise zones" entailed.;Organized anarchy in agenda-setting did not determine the process of policy formulation. The five states represented variations of both bounded rationality and organized anarchy. In contrast to states with bounded rationality, states with organized anarchy had more politicized decisionmaking processes, driven by the logic of political compromise rather than by rational analysis. This did not mean, however, that information or analysis were absent in the states with organized anarchy.;All five states met the requirements for informed decisionmaking, as specified in this study. This concept of "informed decisionmaking" was more useful than the theoretical models for assessing decisionmaking through diffusion. Policymakers did not always control the factors in their decision environments that favored "rational" processes, and politics sometimes provided opportunities to inject different points of view, and to refine proposals through debate. It was therefore more useful to ask how "informed" the decision process surrounding diffusion was, rather than to ask whether it fit rational decisionmaking models.