Despite the important role governors have played in shaping states’ economic development strategies, existing quantitative studies of state economic development policymaking have paid only scant attention to the factors that influence governors’ decisions about economic development policy. This study investigates these factors using a unique data set of gubernatorial economic development proposals generated by content analyzing hundreds of major legislative addresses delivered by governors during the 12-year period from 1995 to 2006. The findings reveal that gubernatorial economic development policymaking is only partially an attempt to solve a state’s economic problems. Economic policy making by governors appears to be driven largely by a desire to compete for new business investment during periods of economic expansion.
AmbrosiusM. M. (1989). The role of occupational interests in state economic development policymaking. Western Political Quarterly, 42, 53-68.
2.
AtkesonL. R.PartinR. W. (1995). Economic and referendum voting: A comparison of gubernatorial and senatorial elections. American Political Science Review, 89, 99-107.
3.
BernickE. L.WigginsC. W. (1991). Executive-legislative relations: The governor’s role as chief legislator. In HerzikE. B.BrownB. W. (Eds.), Gubernatorial leadership and state policy (pp. 73-92). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
4.
BoeckelmanK. (1991). Political culture and state development policy. Publius, 21, 49-62.
5.
BoeckelmanK. (1996). Governors, economic theory, and development policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 10, 342-351.
BraceP. (1993). State government and economic performance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
BraceP. (2002). Mapping economic development policy changes in American states. Review of Policy Research, 19, 161-178.
9.
BradshawT. K.BlakelyE. J. (1999). What are “third-wave” state economic development efforts? From incentives to industrial policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 13, 229-244.
10.
BuchananJ. M.TullockG. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
11.
CobbJ. C. (1993). The selling of the south: The southern crusade for industrial development, 1936-1990 (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
12.
CobbR. W.ElderC. D. (1983). Participation in American politics (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
CohenJ. E.KingJ. D. (2004). Relative unemployment and gubernatorial popularity. Journal of Politics, 66, 1267-1282.
14.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
ElkinsD. R.BinghamR. D.BowenW. M. (1996). Patterns in state economic development policy: Programmatically rich and programmatically lean policy patterns. State and Local Government Review, 28, 158-172.
17.
EisingerP. K. (1988). The rise of the entrepreneurial state: State and local economic development policy in the United States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
18.
EisingerP. K. (1995). State economic development in the 1990s: Politics and policy learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 9, 146-158.
19.
EriksonR. S.WrightG. C.McIverJ. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
FergusonR. F.LaddH. F. (1988). Massachusetts. In FoslerR. S. (Ed.), The new economic role of American states: Strategies in a competitive world economy (pp. 21-61). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
FisherP. (2007). The fiscal consequences of the competition for capital. In MarkusenA. (Ed.), Reining in the competition for capital (pp. 57-86). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
22.
FisherP. S.PetersA. H. (1998). Industrial incentives: Competition among American states and cities. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
23.
FoslerR. S. (Ed.). (1988). The new economic role of American states: Strategies in a competitive world economy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
FoslerR. S. (1992). State economic policy: The emerging paradigm. Economic Development Quarterly, 6, 3-13.
25.
GradyD. (1987). State economic development incentives: Why do states compete?State and Local Government Review, 19, 86-94.
26.
GradyD. O. (1989). Governors and economic development policy: The perception of their role and the reality of their influence. Policy Studies Journal, 17, 879-894.
27.
GradyD. (1991). Managing the state economy: The governor’s role in policymaking. In HerzikE. B.BrownB. W. (Eds.), Gubernatorial leadership and state policy (pp. 105-120). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
28.
GrantD. S.IIWallaceM. W.PitneyW. D. (1995). Measuring state-level economic development programs, 1970-1992. Economic Development Quarterly, 9, 134-145.
29.
GrayV.LoweryD. (1990). The corporatist foundations of state industrial policy. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 3-23.
30.
HallJ. L. (2007). Developing historical 50-state indices of innovation capacity and commercialization capacity. Economic Development Quarterly, 21, 107-123.
31.
HansenS. B. (1999). “Life is not fair”: Governors’ job performance ratings and state economies. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 167-188.
32.
HansonR. L. (1991). Political culture and variations in state economic development policy. Publius, 21, 63-83.
33.
HansonR. L.BerkmanM. B. (1991). Gauging the rainmakers: Toward a meteorology of state legislative climates. Economic Development Quarterly, 5, 213-228.
34.
HartD. M. (2008). The politics of “entrepreneurial” economic development policy of states in the U.S. Review of Policy Research, 25, 149-168.
HerzikE. B. (1991). Policy agendas and gubernatorial leadership. In HerzikE. B.BrownB. W. (Eds.), Gubernatorial leadership and state policy. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
38.
HowellS. E.VanderleeuwJ. M. (1990). Economic effects on state governors. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 158-168.
39.
JacksonJ. E. (1988). Michigan. In FoslerR. S. (Ed.), The new economic role of American states: Strategies in a competitive world economy (pp. 91-111). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40.
KlarnerC. (2003). The measurement of the partisan balance of state government. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3, 309-319.
41.
LandryL. (1988). Arizona. In FoslerR. S. (Ed.), The new economic role of American states: Strategies in a competitive world economy (pp. 251-270). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
42.
LeichtK. T.JenkinsJ. C. (1994). Three strategies of state economic development: entrepreneurial, industrial recruitment, and deregulation policies in the American states. Economic Development Quarterly, 8, 256-269.
43.
LightP. C. (1999). The President’s agenda (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
44.
LoweryD.GrayV. (1992). Holding back the tide of bad economic times: The compensatory impact of state industrial policy. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 483-495.
45.
LynchR. G. (2004). Rethinking growth strategies: How state and local taxes and services affect economic development. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
46.
MarkusenA.NesseK. (2007). Institutional and political determinants of incentive competition. In MarkusenA. (Ed.), Reining in the competition for capital (pp. 1-41). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
47.
NiemiR. G.StanleyH. W.VogelR. J. (1995). State economies and state taxes: Do voters hold governors accountable?American Journal of Political Science, 39, 936-957.
48.
NotoN. A. (1991). Understanding the economic development official’s dilemma. In KenyonD. A.KincaidJ. (Eds.), Competition among states and local governments (pp. 251-258). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
49.
OsborneD. (1988). Laboratories of democracy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
50.
PartinR. W. (1995). Economic conditions and gubernatorial elections: Is the state executive held accountable?American Politics Quarterly, 23, 81-95.
51.
PeretzP. (1986). The market for industry: Where angels fear to tread. Policy Studies Review, 5, 624-633.
52.
PetersA.FisherP. (2004). The failures of economic development incentives. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 27-37.
SaizM. (2001a). Politics and economic development: Why governments adopt different strategies to induce economic development. Policy Studies Journal, 29, 203-214.
55.
SaizM. (2001b). Using program attributes to measure and evaluate state economic development strategies. Economic Development Quarterly, 15, 45-57.
56.
SaizM.ClarkeS. C. (2008). Economic development and infrastructure policy. In GrayV.HansonR. L. (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (9th ed., pp. 415-444). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
57.
SanfordT. (1967). Storm over the states. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
58.
ShannonJ. (1991). Federalism’s “invisible regulator”: Interjurisdictional competition. In KenyonD. A.KincaidJ. (Eds.), Competition among states and local governments (pp. 117-125). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
WalkerJ. L. (1977). Setting the agenda in the U.S. Senate: A theory of problem selection. British Journal of Political Science, 7, 423-445.
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.
