Search

This article presents an analysis of link of state employment and training and economic development programs in the United States. Effectiveness of state economic development programs is contingent on successful coordination of traditional physical capital and human capital improvement activities. The major stimulant to better linkages has been the growing perception that the movement of physical capital is heavily influenced by the skills and educational levels of the potential workforce. The article focuses on examination of the degree to which states have attempted to link physical and human capital development programs and to explore the correlates of these state efforts. The study explores the political, socioeconomic, and programmatic correlates of state organizational efforts. The results show that states which have forged the closest linkages are those which are confronted by declining economies despite extensive state fiscal incentives in support of the private sector and in which governors have fewer constraints on their powers to impose organizational changes.

Economic development initiatives have become common in recent years as stales and localities have sought to attract jobs and economic activity. Despite the popularity of industrial location incentives among state and local policy makers, it is not clear that current policies are either efficient or effective. Acknowledging that states and localities are not likely to cease offering economic development incentives, an alternative approach is presented here. By first determining how they fare in terms of uncontrollable business costs (transportation, energy, and labor costs), stales and localities can better focus their use of industrial location incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

State and local governments are increasingly engaged in efforts to create jobs and stimulate economic activity. While these economic development policies have a momentum of their own, many depend on federal tax, spending, and regulatory policies. State and local officials view some past and potential future federal policies as threats to their development efforts. In turn, federal officials view some state and local economic development activities as counterproductive. Some oppose issuance of tax-exempt bonds and other efforts which they think threaten the internal United States free market. Debates over federal tax reform and the federal deficit provide considerable room for continuing federal/state/local conflicts. In the long run, incentives for cooperation are stronger than those for conflict, and cooperative forces should prevail. State and local officials need federal cooperation to pursue many development objectives. Particularly important are federal research activities that can be linked to state and local efforts to expand technology transfer capabilities of state and local governments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]