¹ A good synopsis of the debate may be found in R. D. Norton's vast review of the literature. ‘Industrial policy’, he writes, ‘has turned out to be an idea with a brief career’. The policy debate ‘has come and gone’. See his ‘Industrial Policy and American Renewal’, Journal of Economic Literature, 24 (1986), 1–40, p. 1.Google Scholar

² Zysman, John, Governments, Markets, and Growth (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar and Krasner, Stephen, Defending the National Interest (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

³ Schultze, Charles, ‘Industrial Policy: A Dissent’, Brookings Review, 1 (1983), 3–12Google Scholar; see also Weidenbaum, Murray and Athey, Michael, ‘What is the Rust Belt's Problem?’ in Johnson, Chalmers, ed., The Industrial Policy Debate (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1984), pp. 117– 32.Google Scholar

⁴ Wildavsky, Aaron, ‘Squaring the Political Circle: Industrial Policies and the American Dream’Google Scholar, in Johnson, , ed. Industrial Policy Debate, pp. 27–44Google Scholar; Heclo, Hugh, ‘Industrial Policy and the Executive Capacity of Government’, in Barfield, Claude and Schambra, William, eds, The Politics of Industrial Policy (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1986), pp. 292–317Google Scholar; and Chandler, Martha and Trebilcock, Michael, ‘Comparative Survey of Industrial Policies in Selected OECD Countries’, in McFetridge, Donald, ed., Economics of Industrial Policy and Strategy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), pp. 85–216.Google Scholar

⁵ See Schultze, , ‘Industrial Policy: A Dissent’.Google Scholar

⁶ See Lecraw, Donald, ‘Industrial Policy in the United States: A Survey’Google Scholar, in McFetridge, , ed., Economics of Industrial Policy and StrategyGoogle Scholar. There is, of course, an alternative perspective on US economic performance that stresses the growing deficit and trade gap, the diminishing proportion of the GNP devoted to civilian R & D and the costs of a trade-off between industrial employment and service jobs. For this position see, among others, Harrison, Bennett and Bluestone, Barry, The Great U-Turn (New York: Basic Books, 1988).Google Scholar

⁷ Eisinger, Peter, The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Osborne, David, Laboratories of Democracy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and Fosler, Scott, ed., The New Economic Role of the American States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

⁸ Silver, Hilary, ‘Is Industrial Policy Possible in the United States? The Defeat of the Rhode Island Greenhouse Compact’, Politics and Society, 17 (1986), 333–68Google Scholar; and Hill, Richard Child and Negrey, Cynthia, ‘The Politics of Industrial Policy in Michigan’, in Zukin, Sharon, ed., Industrial Policy (New York: Praeger, 1985), pp. 119–38.Google Scholar

⁹ Wildavsky, , ‘Squaring the Political Circle’, p. 28.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Johnson, Chalmers, ‘Preface’Google Scholar, in Johnson, , ed., The Industrial Policy Debate, p. 8.Google Scholar

¹¹ Eads, George and Yamamura, Kozo, ‘The Future of Industrial Policy’, in Yamamura, Kozo and Yasuba, Yasukichi, eds, The Political Economy of Japan, Vol. I (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1987), pp. 423–68, at p. 444.Google Scholar

¹² Patrick, Hugh, ‘Japanese High Technology Industrial Policy in Comparative Context’, in Patrick, Hugh, ed., Japan's High Technology Industries (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986), pp. 3–34, at p. 9.Google Scholar

¹³ Ozaki, Robert, ‘How Japanese Industrial Policy Works’Google Scholar, in Johnson, , ed., The Industrial Policy Debate, p. 67.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Guillaume, Henri, ‘Implications of the New Indicative Planning’, in Adams, William James and Stoffaes, Christian, eds, French Industrial Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1986), pp. 119–26Google Scholar; Johnson, Chalmers, MITI and the Japanese Miracle (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Lutz, Vera, Central Planning for the Market Economy (London: Longmans, 1969)Google Scholar; Pempel, T. J., Policy and Politics in Japan: Creative Conservatism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

¹⁵ The Rhode Island Greenhouse Compact was a massive strategic plan put before the voters of the state. Although the compact enjoyed strong bipartisan support among political and business elites and news media, voters defeated the program in the referendum by a four to one margin. Rhode Island is the only state to offer its voters an opportunity to pass a verdict on a coherent industrial policy plan. Analyses of the Compact and the campaign for its passage are found in Anton, Thomas and West, Darrell, ‘Trust, Self-interest and Representation in Economic Policy Making’, New England Journal of Public Policy, 3 (1987), 73–88Google Scholar; and in Silver, , ‘Is Industrial Policy Possible in the United States?’Google Scholar

¹⁶ Atkinson, Michael and Coleman, William, ‘Corporatism and Industrial Policy’, a paper prepared for presentation to the European Group for Organization Studies, Florence, 1983Google Scholar; Katzenstein, Peter, Corporatism and Change: Austria, Switzerland, and the Politics of Industry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Adams, William James, ‘Introduction’Google Scholar, in Adams, and Stoffaes, , eds, French Industrial Policy, p. 4Google Scholar; Pempel, , Policy and Politics in Japan, pp. 71–83.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Johnson, , ‘Preface’Google Scholar and Ozaki, , ‘How Industrial Policy Works’Google Scholar, in Johnson, , ed., The Industrial Policy Debate.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Michigan Task Force for a Long-Term Economic Strategy for Michigan, The Path to Prosperity (East Lansing, Mich.: 1984), p. 52Google Scholar. Cf. Arizona Governor's Office of Economic Planning, Arizona Horizons: A Strategy for Future Growth (Phoenix, Ariz.: 1983), p. 5Google Scholar; Ohio Office of the Governor, Toward a Working Ohio: Jobs and Ohio's Economy (Columbus, Ohio: 1983), p. 16Google Scholar; and Hawaii Governor's Committee on Hawaii's Economic Future, Hawaii's Economic Future (Honolulu: 1985), p. 14.Google Scholar

²⁰ Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, Minnesota: A Strategy for Economic Development (St Paul, Minn.: 1985), p. 15.Google Scholar

²¹ Johnson, , MITI and the Japanese Miracle, p. 22.Google Scholar

²² Pempel, , Policy and Politics in Japan, p. 22.Google Scholar

²³ Guillaume, , ‘Implications of the New Indicative Planning’, p. 120.Google Scholar

²⁴ Rhode Island Strategic Development Commission, The Greenhouse Compact (Providence, RI: 1984)Google Scholar; Nevada Commission on Economic Development, Nevada State Plan for Economic Diversification and Development (Carson City, Nev.: 1985).Google Scholar

²⁵ Indiana Department of Commerce, In Step With the Future … (Indianapolis, Indiana: 1983), p. 7.Google Scholar

²⁶ California Department of Economic and Business Development, Job Creation for California in the Decade of the Eighties (Sacramento, Calif.: 1984), p. 8.Google Scholar

²⁷ Schultze, , ‘Industrial Policy: A Dissent’.Google Scholar

²⁸ Hall, Peter, Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Friedman, David, The Misunderstood Miracle (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

²⁹ Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, Jobs for the Future (Springfield, Ill.: 1985), p. 4.Google Scholar

³⁰ Minnesota, , Strategy for Economic Development, p. 37.Google Scholar

³¹ Pennsylvania Office of the Governor, Choices for Pennsylvanians (Harrisburg, Penn.: 1985), p. 47.Google Scholar

³² The term is from Samuels, Richard, The Business of the Japanese State (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

³³ Katzenstein, Peter, Small States in World Markets (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

³⁴ Atkinson, and Coleman, , ‘Corporatism and Industrial Policy’.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Johnson, on Japan, MITI and the Japanese Miracle, p. viii.Google Scholar

³⁶ Hall, , Governing the Economy, p. 166.Google Scholar

³⁷ Lutz, , Central Planning, p. 55.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ohio, , Toward a Working Ohio, p. 3.Google Scholar

³⁹ New York Office of Economic Development, Rebuilding New York: The Next Phase from Recovery to Resurgence (Albany, NY: 1985), p. 35.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Maine Economic Development Strategy Task Force, Establishing the Maine Advantage (Portland, Me.: 1987), p. 9.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sundquist, James, Dispersing Population (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1975).Google Scholar

⁴² Krauss, Melvyn, ‘“Europeanizing” the US Economy: The Enduring Appeal of the Corporatist State’Google Scholar, in Johnson, , ed., The Industrial Policy Debate, pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

⁴³ Attali, Bernard, ‘Reindustrializing France through Urban and Regional Development’, in Zukin, Sharon, ed., Industrial Policy (New York: Praeger, 1985), pp. 179–84.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Eisinger, Peter, ‘The Search for a National Urban Policy’, Journal of Urban History, 12 (1985), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Minnesota, , Strategy for Economic Development, p. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ New York, Rebuilding New York, p. 30.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Friedman, , Misunderstood Miracle, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Hall, , Governing the Economy, p. 148Google Scholar; see also Katzenstein, , Corporatism and Change, p. 96.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Eisinger, , Rise of the Entrepreneurial State, chap. 12.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Eads, and Yamamura, , ‘The Future of Industrial Policy’, p. 444.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Krauss, , ‘“Europeanizing” the US Economy’.Google Scholar

⁵² Patrick, , ‘Japanese High Technology Industrial Policy’.Google Scholar

⁵³ Pempel, , Policy and Politics in Japan, pp. 71–83.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ US Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Technology and Trade: Indicators of US Industrial Innovation (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Cohen, Stephen, Halimi, Serge and Zysman, John, ‘Institutions, Policies and Industrial Policy in France’Google Scholar, in Barfield, and Schambra, , eds, The Politics of Industrial PolicyGoogle Scholar, and, in the same volume, Johnson, Chalmers, ‘The Institutional Foundation of Japanese Industrial Policy’.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Hall, , Governing the EconomyGoogle Scholar; Lorino, Philipe, ‘French Industrial Policy and US Industry’Google Scholar, in Zukin, , ed., Industrial Policy.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Guillaume, , ‘Implications of the New Indicative Planning’, p. 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Johnson, , MITI and the Japanese Miracle, pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Friedman, , The Misunderstood Miracle, pp. 171, 174.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Bridges, Benjamin, ‘State and Local Inducements for Industry’, National Tax Journal, 18 (1965), 1–14.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Hall, , Governing the Economy, p. 207.Google Scholar

⁶² Hall, , Governing the Economy, p. 209.Google Scholar

⁶³ Patrick, , ‘Japanese High Technology Industrial Policy’, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ It is interesting to note, however, that the budgets of state economic development agencies for all states increased between 1982 and 1988 by nearly 300 per cent. This compares to an increase in total state expenditures for all functions over the same period of approximately 60 per cent. The rise in economic development agency allocations provides a crude indicator of the rush to develop a larger and more elaborate bureaucratic capacity to oversee this policy domain. Figures on agency budgets come from National Association of State Development Agencies, 1988 State Economic Development Expenditure Survey (Washington, DC: NASDA, 1988)Google Scholar. Calculations of the rise in total state spending come from data in US Bureau of the Census, State Government Finances (Washington, DC: GPO), for the relevant years.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Wright, Maurice, ‘Policy Community, Policy Network and Comparative Industrial Policies’, Political Studies, 36 (1988), 593–612, p. 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ The Indiana report concludes its detailed analysis in the following way: ‘The past three years have seen enormous progress … in the implementation of the 1984 Strategic Plan. This appraisal of the 49 specific initiatives recommended in 1984 reveals that 28 either have been carried out satisfactorily or are well on their way toward full implementation. Eight of the original initiatives now appear, with the benefit of hindsight, to have been inappropriate or perhaps stated too vaguely to be capable of measurement … Of the remaining 13 initiatives … completion is still before us.’ Indiana Economic Development Council, Looking Back: The Update of Indiana's Strategic Economic Development Plan (Indianapolis, Ind.: 1987), p. 35.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ By comparison, annual increases in expenditures for other state functions, such as education and public welfare, were running at between 8–10 per cent. Figures for 1987 expenditures for international trade development programs are not available. Neither are comparable expenditure data for high tech for 1986. High-tech expenditures in all cases and international trade development figures in some cases are in addition to state economic development agency budgets. Figures on international trade programs are drawn from National Association of State Development Agencies, State Export Program Database (Washington, DC.: NASDA, 1988).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The four-type matrix does not appear to offer a perfect predicative device for differentiating state behaviour, although it performs reasonably well, as an inspection of the expenditure data suggests. The present utility of the typology is mainly heuristic, however.

⁶⁹ See fnn. 64 and 67.

⁷⁰ Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, A Sunset Performance Audit of the Ben Franklin Partnership Program (Harrisburg, Penn.: 1988), p. 15.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, A Sunset Performance, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁷² Feiock, Richard, ‘Urban Economic Development: Local Government Strategies and Their Effects’, Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, 4 (1987), 215–40.Google Scholar

⁷³ Hansen, Susan, ‘Targeting in Economic Development: Comparative State Perspectives’, Publius, 19 (1989), 47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Support for Hansen's contention that some states fail to target aid to distressed areas is contained in Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, A Sunset Performance, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Illinois Office of the Auditor General, Management and Program Audit of the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs' Economic Development Programs (Springfield, Ill.: 1989), p. 2Google Scholar. Although the state of Colorado is not included in the group of twenty states studied here, an audit of its high-tech support program reaches a similar conclusion. See Colorado Office of State Auditor, Colorado Advanced Technology Institute Performance and Financial Audit (Denver, Colo.: 1989), pp. 18, 28.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, Audit of the Ben Franklin Partnership Program, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Economic Development (St Paul, Minn.: 1985), p. 26.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Wisconsin Department of Development, Analysis of State Investment Board Investments to Enhance the Wisconsin Economy: Second Biennial Report (Madison, Wis.: 1989), p. 6.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ New York Times, 8 10 1989, pp. B-1 and B-6.Google Scholar