States have empowered economic development organizations (EDOs) to administer incentive programs. But EDOs are fundamentally oriented toward client service, which can lead to client group dominance. Client group dominance can undermine the legitimacy, accountability, and efficacy of incentives. Case studies of economic development administration in North Carolina, Nevada, and Oregon demonstrate that EDOs were more likely to solicit and prioritize client group input, and that they established practices that barred competing group input. The article provides theoretical and practical implications, including potential reforms to bring EDOs closer to established good governance principles.
ArkuG. (2013). Outsourcing functions to economic development corporations: Exploring the perceptions of officials in Ontario, Canada. Public Organization Review, 13, 149-170.
2.
BerryW. D. (1984). An alternative to capture theory of regulation: The case of state public utility commissions. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 524-558.
3.
BleichE.PekkanenR. (2013). How to report interview data. In MosleyL. (Ed.), Interview research in political science (pp. 84-109). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
CarpenterD. (2014). Detecting and measuring capture. In CarpenterD.MossD. A. (Eds.), Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence and how to limit it (pp. 57-68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CrowD. A.AlbrightE. A.KoebeleE. (2017). Evaluating informational inputs in rulemaking processes: A cross-case analysis. Administration & Society, 49, 1318-1345.
7.
CuellarM. (2005). Rethinking regulatory democracy. Administrative Law Review, 57, 412-499.
GoldenM. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 245-270.
18.
GordonS. C.HaferC. (2005). Flexing muscle: Corporate political expenditures as signals to the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 99, 245-261.
HuntingtonS. P. (1952). The marasmus of ICC: The commission, the railroads, and the public interest. Yale Law Journal, 61, 467-509.
24.
JansaJ. M. (2017). Economic development and infrastructure policy. In GrayV.HansonR.KousserT. (Eds.), Politics in the American States: A comparative analysis (11th ed.) (pp. 478-502). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
25.
JansaJ. M.GrayV. (2017). Captured development: Industry influence and state economic development subsidies in the great recession era. Economic Development Quarterly, 31, 50-64.
26.
JensenN. M.MaleskyE.MedinaM.OzdemirU. (2014). Pass the bucks: Credit, blame, and the global competition for investment. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 433-447.
27.
JewellC.BeroL. (2007). Public participation and claims-making: Evidence of utilization and divergent policy frames in California’s ergonomics rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 625-650.
28.
KwakJ. (2014). Cultural capture and the financial crisis. In CarpenterD.MossD. A. (Eds.), Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence and how to limit it (pp. 71-98). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
LowiT. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298-315.
33.
MoffittS. L. (2014). Making policy public: Participatory bureaucracy in American democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Nicholson-CrottyS.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2004). Interest group influence on managerial priorities in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 571-583.
35.
NownesA. (2014). Interest groups in American politics: Pressure and power. New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
PrzeworskiA.TeuneH. J. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York, NY: John Wiley.
37.
ReenockC. M.GerberB. J. (2007). Political insulation, information exchange, and interest group access to the bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 415-440.
RourkeF. E. (1991). American bureaucracy in a changing political setting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 111-129.
44.
SabatierP. (1975). Social movements and regulatory agencies: Toward a more adequate and less pessimistic theory of “clientele capture.”Policy Sciences, 6, 301-342.
45.
SaizM. (2001). Politics and economic development: Why governments adopt different strategies to induce economic growth. Policy Studies Journal, 29, 203-214.
46.
SchwarczD. (2014). Preventing capture through consumer empowerment programs: Some evidence from insurance regulation. In CarpenterD.MossD. A. (Eds.), Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence and how to limit it (pp. 365-396). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
WestW. F. (2009). Inside the black box: The development of proposed rules and the limits of procedural controls. Administration & Society, 41, 576-599.
50.
WilsonJ. Q. (1973). Political organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
52.
WitkoC.NewmarkA. (2005). Business mobiliziation and public policy in the U.S. states. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 356-367.
53.
WoodsN. D. (2009). Promoting participation? An examination of rulemaking notification and access procedures. Public Administration Review, 69, 518-530.
54.
YackeeJ. W.YackeeS. W. (2006). A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the U.S. bureaucracy. The Journal of Politics, 68, 128-139.
