Langer found that the supply-side (locational) development policy increased income inequality in the American states, while demand-side (entrepreneurial) policy decreased inequality. Recent scholarship emphasizes the impact of unionization on state inequality. This analysis examines economic development policy and unionization in the same model. Using time series data (1983–2004) with an error correction model, it finds that entrepreneurial activism is associated with rising state inequality, while locational activism has no significant relationship. Additionally, entrepreneurial policy exerts a positive impact on inequality as union density rises, contrary to expectations. Skills-biased technical change is proposed to explain these findings.
AmbergStephen. 2008. “Liberal market economy or composite regime:” Institutional legacies and labor market policy in the United States. Polity40:164–96.
2.
ApergisNicholasDincerOguzhan C.PayneJames E.. 2010. The relationship between corruption and income inequality in U.S. states: Evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model. Public Choice145:125–35.
3.
AtkinsonA. B.1970. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory2:244–63.
4.
AtkinsonRobertAndesScott. 2010. The 2010 state new economy index: Benchmarking economic transformation in the states. Washington, DC: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
5.
BeckNathaniel. 2001. Time-series-cross-section data: What have we learned in the past few years. Annual Review of Political Science4:271–93.
6.
BermanE.BoundJ.MachinS.. 1998. “Implications of skill-based technological change: International evidence”. Quarterly Journal of Economics113:1245–80.
7.
BerryWilliam D.RingquistEvan J.FordingRichard C.HansonRussell L.. 1998. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science42:327–48.
8.
BoeckelmanKeith. 1995. The American states in the postindustrial economy. State and Local Government Review27:182–87.
9.
BracePaul. 1993. State government and economic performance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
BracePaul. 2002. Mapping economic development policy change in the American states. The Review of Policy Research19:161–78.
11.
BradyDavidWallaceMichael. 2000. Spatialization, foreign direct investment, and labor outcomes in the American states, 1976-1998. Social Forces79:67–105.
12.
BramborThomasClarkWilliamGolderMatt. 2005. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analysis. Political Analysis13:1–20.
13.
BraunDenny. 1991. Income inequality and economic development: Geographic divergence. Social Science Quarterly72:520–36.
14.
BronfenbrennerKate. 2009. No holds barred: The intensification of employer opposition to organizing. EPI Briefing Paper # 235, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC.
15.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. Wage and salary employment by industry 1983–2011. Data provided upon request.
16.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2010. Rate (per 100,000 resident population) of sentenced prisoners under jurisdiction of State and Federal Correctional Authorities on Dec. 31. Published as a table in the “Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online.”http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/csv/t6292010.csv (accessed December 31, 2012).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, using Current Population Survey Data. 92012. Unpublished data provided request by BLS in September 24, 2012. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsoccind.htm(Accessed September 24, 2012)
19.
BurkdullJohnTrumanJohn P.. 1999. Texas and the International Economy. State and Local Government Review31:106–22.
20.
CardDavid. 1998. Falling union membership and rising wage inequality: What’s the connection?NBER Working Papers 6520, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, Cambridge, MA.
21.
DavisJoeHustonJohn H.. 1995. Right-to-work laws and union density: New evidence form micro data. Journal of Labour Research16:223–29.
22.
DeBoefSuzannaKeeleLuke. 2008. Taking time seriously: Dynamic regression. American Journal of Political Science52:184–200.
23.
EisingerPeter. 1989. Rise of the entrepreneurial state. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
24.
EisingerPeter. 1990. Do the American states do industrial policy?British Journal of Political Sciences20:509–35.
25.
FarberH. S.2005. Nonunion wage rates and the threat of unionization. Industrial and Labor Relations Review58:335–52.
FrankMark W.2014b. A new state-level panel of annual inequality measures over the period 1916-2005. Journal of Business Strategies31:241–63.
28.
Friedman and Associates. 2006. Directory of incentives for business investment and development in the United States: A state-by-state guide. CD-ROM.
29.
GrantD. S.WallaceM.PitneyW.. 1995. Measuring state-level economic development programs, 1970-1992. Economic Development Quarterly9:134–45.
30.
GrayVirginiaLowryDavid. 1990. The corporatist foundations of state industrial policy. Social Science Quarterly71:3–23.
31.
GreenspanAlan. 1996. Address: Job insecurity and technology. In Technology and growth conference proceedings, ed. FurherJ. C.Sneddon LittleJ., 173–81. Boston, MA: Federal Reserve of Boston Press.
32.
HanleyCarolineDouglassMichael. 2014. High road, low road, or off road? Economic development strategies and the American states. Economic Development Quarterly28:220–29.
33.
HansenSusan B.2001. The impact of a low-wage strategy on state economic development. State Politics & Policy Quarterly1:227–54.
34.
HansenSusan B.2006. Globalization and the politics of pay: Policy choices in the American states. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
35.
HansonRussell. 1993. Bidding for business: A second war between the states?Economic Development Quarterly7:183–97.
36.
HirschBarry T.MacphersonDavid A.VronanWayne G.. (2001) 2012. Estimates of union density by state. Monthly Labor Review124:51–55. www.unionstats.com(accessed October 1, 2012)
37.
HoutMichael. 2003. Money and morale: What growing inequality is doing to Americans’ view of themselves and others. Working Paper, University of California – Berkeley Survey Research Center. http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/ (accessed November 1, 2015).
38.
HuberEvelyneRaginCharlesStephensJohn D.. 1993. Social democracy, christian democracy, constitutional structure, and the welfare state. American Journal Sociology99:711–49.
39.
JacobsL. R.SkocpolTheda, eds. 2005. Inequality and American democracy: What we know and what we need to learn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
KellyNathan. 2005. Political choice, public policy, and distributional outcomes. American Journal of Political Science49:865–80.
41.
KellyNathan J.WitkoChristopher. 2012. Federalism and American inequality. The Journal of Politics74:414–26.
42.
KorpiWalter. 1989. Power, politics, and state autonomy in the development of social citizenship: Social rights during sickness in eighteen OECD countries since 1930. American Sociological Review54:309–28.
43.
LangerLaura. 2001. The consequences of state economic development strategies on income distribution in the American states, 1976-1994. American Politics Research29:392–415.
44.
LeichtK. T.JenkinsJ. C.. 1994. Three strategies of state economic development: Entrepreneurial, industrial recruitment, and deregulation policies in the American states. Economic Development Quarterly8:256–69.
45.
MayerGerald. 2004. Union membership trends in the United States. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Washington, DC.
46.
MylesJohnQuadagnoJill. 2002. Political theories of the welfare state. Social Service Review 76:34–57.
47.
National Association of State Development Agencies. 2002. Directory of incentives for business investment and development in the United States: A state-by-state guide. Washington, DC: National Association of State Development Agencies.
48.
National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices. 2004. A governor’s guide to strengthening state entrepreneurial policy. www.nga.org(accessed November 1, 2015).
49.
NeckermanKathryn M.TorcheFlorencia. 2007. Inequality: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology33:335–57
50.
NelsonJoel I.1984. Income inequality: The American states. Social Science Quarterly65:854–60.
51.
PetersAlanFisherPeter. 2004. Commentary; the failures of economic development incentives. Journal of the American Planning Association70:27–37.
52.
PetersonPaul E.1995. The price of federalism. New York: Twentieth Century.
53.
PontussonJonasRuedaDavidWayChristopher R.. 2002. Comparative political economy of wage distribution: The role of partisanship and labour market institutions. British Journal of Political Science32:281–308.
54.
RadcliffBenjaminSaizMartin. 1998. Labor organization and public policy in the American states. Journal of Politics60:113–25.
55.
SaizMartin. 2001a. Using program attributes to measure and evaluate state economic development strategies. Economic Development Quarterly15:45–57.
56.
SaizMartin. 2001b. Politics and economic development: Why governments adopt different strategies to induce economic growth. Policy Studies Journal29:203–14.
57.
SaizMartinClarkeSusan E.. 2012. Economic development and infrastructure policy. In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 9th ed., ed. GrayVirginiaHansonRussell L., 501–32. Washington, DC:CQ Press.
58.
SchwekeW.RoseC.DamsonB.. 1994. Bidding for business: Are cities and states selling themselves short?Washington, DC: Corporation for Enterprise Development.
59.
TurnerRobert C.2003. “The political economy of gubernatorial smokestack chasing: Bad policy and bad politics?” State Politics and Policy Quarterly3:270–93.
WesternBruce. 2002. The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. American Sociological Review67:526–46.
62.
WesternBruce. 2006. Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
63.
WitkoChristopherNewmarkAdam J.. 2010. The strange disappearance of investment in human and physical capital in the U.S. states. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20:215–32.
64.
CowellF. A.1995. Measuring inequality. 2nd ed. New York: Simon and Schuster International, Harvester Wheatsheaf/Prentice Hall.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
