Rubin (1988) argued communities “shoot anything that flies and claim anything that falls” in their efforts to attract businesses. Such a perspective implies local governments will use large numbers of strategies as they try “everything but the kitchen sink” to promote job creation and private investment. Conversely, Stokan (2003) claims localities are more selective in how they approach economic development, which implies there should be wide variation in the number of development strategies used across jurisdictions. Based on original survey data from North Carolina cities and counties of all sizes, the findings provide support for both explanations. The data show localities vary considerably with respect to the number of strategies they employ. Notably, variation in strategy use is associated with certain community characteristics including government capacity and development network strength. However, the data also reveal that communities are, on average, utilizing a relatively high number of strategies, lending some credence to Rubin’s theory.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
2.
BesserT. L.ReckerN.ParkerM. (2009). The impact of new employers from the outside, the growth of local capitalism, and new amenities on the social and economic welfare of small towns. Economic Development Quarterly, 23, 306-316.
3.
BetzM. R.PartridgeM. D.KraybillD. S.LobaoL. (2012). Why do localities provide economic development incentives? Geographic competition, political constituencies, and government capacity. Growth and Change, 43, 361-391.
4.
BluesteinF. S. (2006). Do North Carolina local governments need home rule. North Carolina Law Review, 84, 1983-2029.
5.
BowmanA. O.KearneyR. C. (1988). Dimensions of state government capability. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 341-362.
6.
BrennanJ. F.PaarlbergL.HoymanM. (2013). Assembling the puzzle of the nonprofit-economic development linkage. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 5, 45-65.
7.
ClingermayerJ.FeiockR. (1990). The adoption of economic development policies by large cities: A test of economic, interest group, and institutional explanations. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 539-552.
8.
FeiockR. C.ClingermayerJ. C. (1986). Municipal representation, executive power, and economic development policy activity. Policy Studies Journal, 15, 211-229.
9.
FeiockR. C.ClingermayerJ. C. (1992). Development policy choice: Four explanations for city implementation of economic development policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 49-63.
10.
FleischmannA.GreenG. P. (1991). Organizing local agencies to promote economic development. American Review of Public Administration, 21, 1-15.
11.
FleischmannA.GreenG. P.KwongT. M. (1992). What’s a city to do? Explaining differences in local economic development policies. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 677-699.
12.
GarganJ. J. (1981). Consideration of local government capacity. Public Administration Review, 41, 649-658.
13.
GilesW. A.GabrisG. T.KraneD. A. (1980). Dynamics in rural policy development: The uniqueness of county government. Public Administration Review, 40, 24-28.
14.
GoetzE. G. (1990). Type II policy and mandated benefits in economic development. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26, 170-190.
15.
GordonV. (2007). Partners or competitors? Perceptions of regional economic development cooperation in Illinois. Economic Development Quarterly, 21, 60-78.
16.
GreenG. P.FleischmannA.KwongT. M. (1996). The effectiveness of local economic development policies in the 1980s. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 609-625.
17.
HaH.LeeI. W.FeiockR. C. (2016). Organizational network activities for local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 30, 15-31.
18.
HawkinsC. V.AndrewS. A. (2010). Linking cooperative arrangements and economic development strategies: An institutional collection action framework. International Review of Public Administration, 15(1), 1-16.
19.
HonadleB. W. (1981). A capacity-building framework: A search for concept and purpose. Public Administration Review, 41, 575-580.
20.
HoymanM.McCallJ.PaarlbergL.BrennanJ. (2016). Considering the role of social capital for economic development outcomes in U.S. counties. Economic Development Quarterly, 30, 342-357.
JeongM.FeiockR. C. (2006). Impact fees, growth management, and development: A contractual approach to local policy and governance. Urban Affairs Review, 41, 749-768.
23.
KelleherC. A.YackeeS. W. (2004). An empirical assessment of devolution’s policy impact. Policy Studies Journal, 32, 253-270.
24.
KraneD.RigosP.HillM. (2001). Home rule in America: A fifty-state handbook (1st ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
25.
KrebsT. B.PelisseroJ. P. (2010). City council policy adoption: Institutions, conflict and support for reinventing government. Public Administration Review, 70, 258-267.
26.
LobaoL.KraybillD. (2005). The emerging roles of county governments in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas: Findings from a national survey. Economic Development Quarterly, 19, 245-259.
27.
LobaoL.KraybillD. (2009). Poverty and local governments: Economic development and community service provision in an era of decentralization. Growth and Change, 40, 418-451.
28.
MorganJ. Q. (2010). Governance, policy innovation, and local economic development in North Carolina. Policy Studies Journal, 38, 679-702.
29.
NelsonK. L.SvaraJ. H. (2012). Form of government still matters. American Review of Public Administration, 42, 257-281.
30.
Nicholson-CrottyS.MeierK. J. (2002). Size doesn’t matter: In defense of single-state studies. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2, 411-422.
31.
NorthD. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32.
OhY.LeeI. W.BushC. B. (2014). The role of dynamic social capital on economic development partnerships within and across communities. Economic Development Quarterly, 28, 230-243.
33.
OsgoodJ. L.Jr.OppS. M.BernotskyR. L. (2012). Yesterday’s gains versus today’s realities: Lessons from 10 years of economic development practice. Economic Development Quarterly, 26, 334-350.
34.
PaarlbergL.HoymanM.McCallJ. (2018). Heterogeneity, income inequality, and social capital: A new perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 99, 699-710.
35.
ParkJ.FeiockR. C. (2011). Stability and change in county economic development organizations. Economic Development Quarterly, 26, 3-12.
PutnamR. D.LeonardiR.NanettiR. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
ReeseL. A. (1994). The role of counties in local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 8, 28-42.
39.
ReeseL. A. (1997). The use of planning methodologies in local economic development decision-making. Environment and Planning C, 15, 285-303.
40.
ReeseL. A. (2006). Do we really need another typology? Clusters of local economic development strategies. Economic Development Quarterly, 20, 368-376.
41.
ReeseL. A. (2014). The alchemy of local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 28, 206-219.
42.
ReeseL. A.FasenfestD. (2003). Planning for development: An assessment of the economic development district planning process. Economic Development Quarterly, 17, 264-279.
43.
ReeseL. A.RosenfeldR. A. (2004). Local economic development in the United States and Canada: Institutionalizing policy approaches. American Review of Public Administration, 34, 277-292.
44.
ReeseL. A.YeM. (2011). Policy versus place luck: Achieving local economic prosperity. Economic Development Quarterly, 25, 221-236.
45.
RingJ. K.PeredoA. M.ChrismanJ. J. (2010). Business networks and economic development in rural communities in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 171-195.
46.
RoheW. (2011). The research triangle: From tobacco road to global prominence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
47.
RubinH. J. (1988). Shoot anything that flies; claim anything that falls: Conversations with economic development practitioners. Economic Development Quarterly, 2, 236-251.
48.
RubinI. S.RubinH. J. (1987). Economic development incentives: The poor (cities) pay more. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23, 37-62.
49.
RupasinghaA.GoetzS.FreshwaterD. (2000). Social capital and economic growth: A county-level analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32, 565-572.
50.
SchneiderJ. (2009). Organizational social capital and nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 643-662.
51.
SharpE. B. (1986). The politics and economics of the new city debt. American Political Science Review, 80, 1271-1288.
52.
SharpE. B. (1991). Institutional manifestations of accessibility and urban economic development policy. Western Political Quarterly, 44, 129-147.
53.
SharpE. B.MullinixK. (2012). Holding their feet to the fire: Explaining variation in city governments’ use of controls on economic development subsidies. Economic Development Quarterly, 26, 138-150.
54.
SharpJ. S.AgnitschK.RyanV.FloraJ. (2002). Social infrastructure and community economic development strategies: The case of self-development and industrial recruitment in rural Iowa. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 405-417.
55.
StokanE. (2013). Testing Rubin’s model 25 years later: A multilevel approach to local economic development incentive adoption. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 301-315.
56.
SullivanD. M. (2002). Local government’s as risk takers and risk reducers: An examination of business subsidies and subsidy controls. Economic Development Quarterly, 16, 115-126.
57.
SullivanD. M.GreenG. P. (1999). Business subsidies and municipal controls. Journal of Urban Affairs, 21, 267-279.
58.
SwannW. L. (2017). Examining the impact of local collaborative tools on urban sustainability efforts: Does the managerial environment matter?American Review of Public Administration, 47, 455-468.
59.
YorkA. M.FeiockR. C.SteinackerA. (2013). Dimensions of economic development and growth management policy choices. State and Local Government Review, 45, 86-97.
60.
WangX.HawkinsC. V.LebredoN.BermanE. M. (2012). Capacity to sustain sustainability: A study of U.S. cities. Public Administration Review, 72, 841-853.
61.
WestlundH.AdamF. (2010). Social capital and economic performance: A meta-analysis of 65 studies. European Planning Studies, 18, 893-919.
62.
ZhangX.WarnerM. E.HomsyG. C. (2017). Environment, equity, and economic development goals: Understanding differences in local economic development strategies. Economic Development Quarterly, 31, 196-209.
63.
ZhengL.WarnerM. E. (2010). Business incentive use among U.S. local governments: A story of accountability and policy learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 24, 325-336.
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.
