1932

Abstract

The law is permanently under construction. Most legal change is intentional. A legislator, a court, or one of the law's subjects hopes to better achieve a purpose by switching from one rule, one interpretation, or one remedy to the next. Yet empirically, legal innovation tends to be a process that takes time. At the macro level, the diffusion path is often S shaped: It does not start immediately and levels off after a while. This article links legal innovation to diffusion research and discusses micro processes that have the potential to generate the observed diffusion paths.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-012835
2022-10-18
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/18/1/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-012835.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-012835&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ackermann W, Bastard B. 2013. The diffusion of innovation in the judicial system. The Logic of Organizational Disorder M Warglien, M Masuch 73–88 De Gruyter Stud. Organ. 66 Berlin: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alschner W, Charlotin D. 2018. The growing complexity of the International Court of Justice's self-citation network. Eur. J. Int. Law 29:83–112
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura A. 1977. Social Learning Theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice Hall
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes J, Burke TF. 2006. The diffusion of rights: from law on the books to organizational rights practices. Law Soc. Rev. 40:3493–524
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bass FM. 1969. A new product growth model for consumer durables. Manag. Sci. 15:5215–27
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bechtold S, Frankenreiter J, Klerman D. 2018. Forum selling abroad. South. Calif. Law Rev. 92:487–556
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Benner LA, Bird R, Smythe DJ. 2012. Social-network theory and the diffusion of the search-and-seizure exclusionary rule among state courts. Brigham Young Univ. J. Public Law 27:97–144
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bird RC, Smythe DJ. 2008. The structure of American legal institutions and the diffusion of wrongful-discharge laws, 1978–1999. Law Soc. Rev. 42:4833–64
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bird RC, Smythe DJ. 2012. Social-network analysis and the diffusion of the strict liability rule for manufacturing defects, 1963–87. Law Soc. Inq. 37:3565–94
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boehmke FJ, Witmer R. 2004. Disentangling diffusion: the effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Res. Q. 57:139–51
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bradford A. 2020. The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Canon BC, Baum L. 1981. Patterns of adoption of tort law innovations: an application of diffusion theory to judicial doctrines. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 75:4975–87
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cerrone C, Lades LK. 2017. Sophisticated and naïve procrastination: an experimental study MPI Coll. Goods Preprint 2017/8. https://papers.ssrn.com/Sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2969797
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Choi SJ, Gulati GM. 2007. Trading votes for reasoning: covering in judicial opinions. South. Calif. Law Rev. 81:735–79
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Choi SJ, Gulati GM. 2008. Bias in judicial citations. J. Legal Stud. 37.1:87–129
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark TS, Lauderdale BE. 2012. The genealogy of law. Political Anal. 20.3:329–50
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dobbin F, Kelly EL. 2007. How to stop harassment: professional construction of legal compliance in organizations. Am. J. Sociol. 112:41203–43
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dobbin F, Simmons B, Garrett G. 2007. The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning?. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33:449–72
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Engel C. 2002. Abfallrecht und Abfallpolitik Baden-Baden, Ger: Nomos
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Engel C. 2008. Learning the law. J. Inst. Econ. 4:275–97
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Engel C. 2010. The behaviour of corporate actors: a survey of the empirical literature. J. Inst. Econ. 6:445–75
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Engel C, Klement A, Weinshall-Margel K. 2018. Diffusion of legal innovations: the case of Israeli class actions. J. Emp. Legal Stud. 15:708–31
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Epstein L, Šadl U, Weinshall K. 2021. The role of comparative law in the analysis of judicial behavior. Am. J. Comp. Law 70:26–46
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ford GT. 1978. Adoption of consumer policies by states: some empirical perspectives. J. Mark. Res. 15:49–57
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Frankenreiter J. 2017. The politics of citations at the ECJ. J. Legal Stud. 14:813–57
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Frankenreiter J, Livermore MA. 2020. Computational methods in legal analysis. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 16:39–57
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Glick D. 2013. Safety in numbers: mainstream-seeking diffusion in response to executive compensation regulations. Q. J. Political Sci. 8:295–125
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Glick DM. 2014. Learning by mimicking and modifying: a model of policy knowledge diffusion with evidence from legal implementation. J. Law Econ. Org. 30:2339–70
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Goderis B, Versteeg M. 2014. The diffusion of constitutional rights. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 39:1–19
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldbach TS. 2019. Why legal transplants?. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 15:583–601
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Goodman R, Jinks D. 2004. How to influence states: socialization and international human rights law. Duke Law J. 54:3621–703
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Graham K. 2015. The diffusion of doctrinal innovations in tort law. Marquette Law Rev. 99:75–178
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Grattet R, Jenness V, Curry TR. 1998. Innovation and diffusion in the criminalization of bigotry. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:286–307
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gray V. 1973. Innovation in the states: a diffusion study. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 67:41174–85
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gregory AC. 1985. The transmission of legal precedent: a study of state supreme courts. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 79:178–94
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Griliches Z. 1960. Hybrid corn and the economics of innovation. Science 132:275–80
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnson OCA. 2016. The local turn: innovation and diffusion in civil rights law. Law Contemp. Probl. 79:115–44
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Katz ML, Shapiro C. 1985. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am. Econ. Rev. 75:424–40
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Klerman D, Reilly G. 2015. Forum selling. South. Calif. Law Rev. 89:241–316
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kritzer HM, Beckstrom DC. 2007. Daubert in the states: diffusion of a new approach to expert evidence in the courts. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 4:4983–1006
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Larsson O, Naurin D, Derlén M, Lindholm J. 2017. Speaking law to power: the strategic use of precedent of the court of justice of the European Union. Comp. Political Stud. 50:7879–907
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Law DS, Versteeg M. 2013. Sham constitutions. Calif. Law Rev. 101:863–952
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Leibon G, Livermore MA, Harder R, Riddell A, Rockmore D. 2018. Bending the law: geometric tools for quantifying influence in the multinetwork of legal opinions. Artif. Intell. Law 26:145–67
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Linos K. 2006. When do policy innovations spread? Lessons for advocates of lesson-drawing. Harvard Law Rev. 119:1467–87
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lozner SL. 2004. Diffusion of local regulatory innovations. Columbia Law Rev. 104:768–800
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lupu Y, Fowler JH. 2013. Strategic citations to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. J. Legal Stud. 42:1151–86
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lutz JM. 1986. The spatial and temporal diffusion of selected licensing laws in the United States. Political Geogr. Q. 5:2141–59
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lutz JM. 1989. Emulation and policy adoptions in the Canadian provinces. Can. J. Political Sci. 22:1147–54
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Miller JS. 2019. Law's semantic self-portrait: discerning doctrine with co-citation networks and keywords. Univ. Pittsburgh Law Rev. 81:1–62
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Mones E, Sapieżyński P, Thordal S, Olsen HP, Lehmann S. 2021. Emergence of network effects and predictability in the judicial system. Nat. Sci. Rep. 11:2740
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Mooney CZ, Lee M-H. 1999. The temporal diffusion of morality policy: the case of death penalty legislation in the American states. Policy Stud. J. 27:4766–80
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Moyer LP, Tankersley H. 2012. Judicial innovation and sexual harassment doctrine in the US courts of appeals. Political Res. Q. 65:4784–98
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Niblett A, Yoon AH. 2015. Judicial disharmony: a study of dissent. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 42:60–71
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Novak A. 2020. Transnational legal citation as method of norm diffusion. Transnational Human Rights Litigation: Challenging the Death Penalty and Criminalization of Homosexuality in the Commonwealth37–64 Cham, Switz: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pacheco J. 2012. The social contagion model: exploring the role of public opinion on the diffusion of antismoking legislation across the American states. J. Politics 74:187–202
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Perkins DN. 2001. The Eureka Effect New York: WW Norton & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Poel DH. 1976. The diffusion of legislation among the Canadian provinces. Can. J. Political Sci. 9:4605–26
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Powell MJ. 1993. Professional innovation: corporate lawyers and private lawmaking. Law Soc. Inq. 18:3423–52
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Rampa G, Saraceno M. 2016. Beliefs, precedent, and the dynamics of access to justice. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 18:2272–301
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Rockmore DN, Fang C, Foti NJ, Ginsburg T, Krakauer DC. 2017. The cultural evolution of national constitutions. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69:483–94
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Rogers EM. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations New York: Free Press
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Romano R. 2006. The states as a laboratory: legal innovation and state competition for corporate charters. Yale J. Regul. 23:209–48
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Romano R, Sanga S. 2017. The private ordering solution to multiforum shareholder litigation. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 14:131–78
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Šadl U, Olsen HP. 2017. Can quantitative methods complement doctrinal legal studies? Using citation network and corpus linguistic analysis to understand international courts. Leiden J. Int. Law 30:2327–49
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Savage RL. 1978. Policy innovativeness as a trait of American states. J. Politics 40:1212–24
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Shur-Ofry M, Fibich G, Green S. 2019. The diffusion of legal innovation: insights from mathematical modeling. Cornell Int. Law J. 52:313–50
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Smythe DJ. 2008. Transaction costs, neighborhood effects, and the diffusion of the Uniform Sales Act, 1906–47. Rev. Law Econ. 4:1341–72
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Soh THJ. 2021. Simulating subject communities in case-law citation networks. Front. Phys. 9:399–416
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Spamann H. 2009. Contemporary legal transplants: legal families and the diffusion of (corporate) law. Brigham Young Univ. Law Rev. 2009:61813–78
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Tews K, Busch P-O, Jörgens H. 2003. The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments. Eur. J. Political Res. 42:4569–600
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Turner WB. 2007. Lesbian de facto parent standard in Holtzman v. Knott: judicial policy innovation and diffusion. Berkeley J. Gender Law Justice 22:135–82
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Twining W. 2004. Diffusion of law: a global perspective. . J. Legal Plur. Unoff. Law 36:491–45
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Twining W. 2005. Social science and diffusion of law. J. Law Soc. 32:2203–40
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Twining W. 2006. Diffusion and globalization discourse. Harvard Int. Law J. 47:507–16
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Walker JL. 1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 63:3880–99
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Westbrook DA. 2006. Theorizing the diffusion of law. Harvard Int. Law J. 47:489–505
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-012835
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-012835
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error