Research across subfields has explored questions of how and why one political actor’s decisions are affected by others’. I investigate recent executive compensation disclosure regulations to make theoretical, substantive, and methodological contributions to the diffusion literature. I emphasize mainstream-seeking in the face of monitoring from regulators, interest groups, or voters. When there are high costs to sticking out, actors may look at others to identify the safe mainstream. I investigate the diffusion of practices amongst the regulated to extend the literature beyond policy creation to equally important implementation questions. I show that diffusion is an important factor affecting legal and policy impact. I do so by measuring social learning in new ways taking advantage of quasi-random assignment to social learning opportunities and independent decision making treatments. I show that social learning opportunities had a substantial negative effect on the quality of disclosures and led to less varied reports.
Safety in Numbers: Mainstream-Seeking Diffusion in Response to Executive Compensation Regulations*
I would like to thank David Lewis, Keith Whittington, Nolan McCarty, Bruce Huber, Debra Glick, Doug Kriner, Michael Herron and seminar participants at Dartmouth, Maryland, BU and Kentucky. I would also like to thank the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth for support, Dartmouth students Zoe Friedland and Gabi Tudin for their enthusiastic research assistance, Jim Smith for sharing his CD&A expertise, and the very thorough reviewers. I originally presented an earlier version at the 2010 MPSA meeting. All stylistic and substantive errors are my own.
Glick D (2013), "Safety in Numbers: Mainstream-Seeking Diffusion in Response to Executive Compensation Regulations*". Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8 No. 2 pp. 95–125, doi: https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00012032
Download citation file:
