In theory, one major advantage of the U.S. federal system is that rather than always having one national policy to fit all circumstances, individual states can tailor their policies to local needs and preferences. Of course, federal guidelines and regulations sometimes structure a certain uniformity of state policy. The states’ common participation in programs like Medicaid or AFDC are cases in point. Even where states are quite free (within constitutional constraints) to experiment boldly, innovation is often the exception. Observers generally depict the state policy process as a pattern of occasional innovation by some states followed by widespread copying by others (e.g., Walker, 1969; Gray, 1973). Still, even though states may seem more similar than different in terms of the policies they enact, the differences that do exist are often important. Moreover, these differences reflect more than random policy mutations. Behind many differences in state policy one can detect differences in the policy preferences of state citizens.

To illustrate, we select the states of Oklahoma and Oregon for comparison. These two states are similar in many respects besides adjacency in alphabetical order. They are both in the West and similar in size, urbanism, and average income levels. Yet when we compare their policies in force in or about the year 1980, we find many differences.

We can begin with spending for public schools, an important matter that normally accounts for about a quarter of a state's spending. Oregon chose to spend about 40 percent more per pupil than did Oklahoma ($3, 130 vs. $2, 230), suggesting a considerable difference in the two states’ interest in investing in education.