In public policy analysis the state is often presented as primarily technocratic and virtually separate from society. It freely chooses its own goals, but falls short primarily because of shortcomings in policy planning techniques. This view, however, conflates policy and investment programs, while neglecting state–society relations, multipurpose policies, and the legitimation of spatial policy. State theory must be able to interpret these dimensions of the state and its limited autonomy, as this critique of Lim's theory of state policies suggests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerB, 1985, “The crisis of the state and the region: Regional planning questioned”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space3141–153
2.
BlockF, 1987, Revising State Theory: Essays in Politics and Postindustrialization (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA)
3.
BNH, 1982Annual Report—1981 O Banco Nacional da Habitação, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
4.
BNH, 1984Relatório Anual—1984 O Banco Nacional da Habitação, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
5.
BNH, undated, “Programs”, public relations pamphlet, O Banco Nacional da Habitação, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
6.
BunkerS, 1985Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern State (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL)
7.
ClarkGDearM, 1984State Apparatus: Structures and Language of Legitimacy (Allen and Unwin, Winchester, MA)
8.
DahlR, 1975Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
9.
EricksonK, 1977The Brazilian Corporatist State and Working Class Politics (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
10.
EvansP, 1979Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State and Local Capital in Brazil (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
11.
EvansPRueschemeyerDSkocpolT, 1985Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
12.
GereggiGEvansP, 1981, “Transnational corporations, dependent development, and state policy in the semiperiphery: A comparison of Brazil and Mexico”Latin American Research Review16(3) 31–64
13.
GilbertAGoodmanD, 1976, “Regional income disparities and economic development: A critique”, in Development Planning and Spatial Structure Ed. GilbertA, (John Wiley, New York) pp 115–135
14.
GoldingB, 1982A National Housing Policy for JamaicaMinistry of Construction (Housing), Kingston
HamiltonN, 1982The Limits of State Autonomy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
17.
HeldDAndersonJGibenBHallSHarrisLLewisPParkerNTurokB, 1983States and Societies (New York University Press, New York)
18.
KlakT, 1989, “Spatially and socially progressive state policy and programs: The case of Brazil's National Housing Park”Annals of the Association of American Geographers (forthcoming)
19.
LimG-C, 1988, “Theory and taxonomy of sectoral, distributional, and spatial policies”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy6225–236
20.
PahlRWinklerJ, 1974, “The coming corporatism”New Society1072–76
21.
PoulantzasN, 1975Classes in Contemporary Capitalism (New Left Books, London)
22.
RondinelliD, 1983Secondary Cities in Developing Countries: Policies for Diffusing Urbanism (Sage, Beverly Hills)
23.
RueschemeyerDEvansP, 1985, “The state and economic transformation: Toward an analysis of the conditions underlying effective intervention”, in Bringing the State Back In Eds EvansPRueschemeyerDSkocpolT, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 44–77
24.
SayerA, 1979, “Epistemology and conceptions of people and nature in geography”Geoforum1019–43
25.
SkocpolT, 1980, “Political response to capitalist crisis: Neo-Marxist theories of the state and the case of the New Deal”Politics and Society10155–201
26.
TherbornG, 1980The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology (Verso, London)
