Search

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) was designed to reveal the economic, social, and environmental trade-offs associated with conventional economic growth as traditionally measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Although originally designed for use at the national scale, an interest has developed in the United States in a state-level uptake of the GPI to inform and guide policy. This study presents the first fifty-state estimate for U.S. GPI in order to address questions over its design, implementation, and ultimate potential as a tool to guide state-level economic policy. Following a review of the current state of analysis and critique of GPI, we provide an overview of methodology and database development. Results are then presented, including discussion of lessons learned through a fifty-state application. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research and next steps to consolidating a consistent methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the controversial issue of regional development incentives. Although extensive research has been conducted, a review of the literature gives an inconclusive answer to whether economic incentives are effective. Why do researchers arrive at different conclusions, even after analysing the same programmes? Among the problems that we find, for example, is the fact that for some researchers ‘effective’ means the significant location of new firms in targeted areas, while for others the creation of jobs regardless of whether new firms are arriving in a significant fashion. Furthermore, as we elaborate, the selection of an econometric model will have a significant impact on expected results. Different models, with different limitations, will lead researchers to evaluate the same incentive programme but arrive at different conclusions regarding its effectiveness. The contribution of the paper is to inform policymakers about the potential opportunities and pitfalls when designing incentive strategies. This is particularly relevant, given that both the US and Europe have been promoting incentives as a tool for regional economic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last two centuries, the reallocation of labor out of agriculture has been a dominant feature of structural change and economic growth in the United States. This paper uses an accounting framework founded in economic theory to decompose this reallocation into three components: a demand-side effect due to the low income elasticity of demand for agricultural goods (Engel effect), and two supply-side effects, one due to differential sectoral productivity growth rates (Baumol effect), and the other to differential capital deepening. The results show that the Engel effect accounts for almost all labor reallocation until the 1950s, after which the Baumol effect becomes a key determinant. Our framework provides a unified account of long-run structural change, and demonstrates that historical interpretations and theoretical models that emphasize only one dimension of this process cannot properly account for the dramatic history of labor reallocation in the United States. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper examines the recent history of State-level policies in the United States for knowledge-based economic development, and identifies an emerging model based on technology creation. This new model goes beyond traditional investments in technology transfer and prioritizes cutting-edge scientific research in economically relevant fields. As research-intensive universities are indispensable for technology creation, these policies have yielded substantial new investments in university science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years the American states have begun to adopt new types of economic development policies, variously called "demand side" policies, industrial policy, or interventionist policy. In this paper the authors discuss the emergence of these policies and the political and economic changes in states which led to their consideration. Two explanations for their adoption are developed--the business capture hypothesis and the meso-corporatist hypothesis. These differing interpretations are tested with data on state interest groups, government capacity, and economic stress. Data on policy adoptions by 1986 show that the meso-corporatist model provides a better account of industrial policy than does the business capture hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]