THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRIME AND INCARCERATION AMONG THE AMERICAN STATES1

Data from the 50 states for 1975 are analyzed to try to separate the presumed reciprocal effects on each other of crime rates and incarceration rates. Two-stage least-squares regression shows no significant effect of crime on incarceration nor of incarceration on crime. Incarceration rates are affected mainly by the percentage of blacks in the state population. Crime rates are significantly influenced by urbanization, region, mean income, and unemployment.     

THE AMERICAN STATES AND THE SHIFTING LOCUS OF POSITIVE ECONOMIC INTERVENTION

While there has been a turn away from positive government intervention in the economy at the national level, we have witnessed an embrace of this strategy in may of the American states. What impact, if any, have these efforts by state governments had on their economies? The paper focuses on variations in party control, competition, and ideology, the institutional capacities of governors and legislatures, and policy measures, while controlling for a variety of alternative influences on state economies. For the period from 1968–1979 states were dominated by the national economy and other forces over which they had little or no control, and thus had little or no effect on their economies. However, for the 1980–1985 period, party, political capacity, and policy exerted a statistically significant influence on state economic performance.     

MAPPING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN STATES1

This article explores an interesting question. Why, despite compelling evidence arguing against their effectiveness, do ever‐larger incentive packages continue to be offered by the states to attract firms?     

THE HEARTLANDS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE US STATES

Abstract: Over recent years the American states have re-emerged as centres of policy innovation and reasserted themselves within the federal system. In contrast, at least until Bill Clinton's accession to the presidency, the federal government has lost the initiative. Indeed, Clinton's accession from what in the past would have been regarded as an obscure southern governorship symbolises the shift of the states to the centre stage of American politics. This article considers the reasons for this shift, stressing the generational change among the governors, the new economic and social challenges faced by the states and the increasing withdrawal of the federal government from the state sphere. In terms of the prospects for the future of American federalism, federal government is likely to withdraw further under Clinton, reversing the trend of earlier Democratic presidencies. Indeed, thanks to the efforts of governors like Clinton, state governments are now better equipped than ever before to shoulder new responsibilities. Their tax base has widened, though many states have faced difficult budgetary situations in the early 1990s. The organisation and structure of most state governments have been modernised, if slowly given the obstacles inherent in the separation of powers. The new breed of governor has a more managerial approach than earlier generations, and contemporary governors have sought to centralise their power within the executive branch. As state legislatures have also asserted their influence over the executive branch, gubernatorial influence has usually been enhanced at the expense of other power centres within the executive.     

AMERICAN STATES AND THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY DEBATE

The current popular debate over industrial policy tends to be Indifferent to the possible relevance of economic policies in American states. The states are not only very active in this arena through their Industrial and economic development efforts, but also have untapped potential for influencing business decisions. As an integral part of the Amerlcan economic policy arena, states cannot and should not be ignored by industrial policy advocates. Some constitutional, policy, and programmatlc implications of this point are briefly discussed.     

THE PLURALITY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING POLICYMAKINC: SCHOOL REFORM LEGISLATION IN THE AMERICAN STATES, 1982–84

This paper attempts to explore recent efforts of American state legislatures to improve the quality of public schools. Which state legislatures have passed school reform legislation? At what aspects of public education is this reform legislation aimed? Are there significant variations across states in such reform legislation? What has contributed most to the passage of such legislation? Is it the socioeconomic characteristics of individual states or the structural and procedural characteristics of their legislative branch that better explain school reform legislation? Analysis of data from the 50 states reveals greater variation in legislative results that reform public schools. The regional locus of most reform was the south. Most importantly, school reform legislation was found to be influenced by the interaction of a multitude of divergent forces. This finding suggests that researchers interested in the determinants of legislative action must move beyond analysis of whether economic or political forces shape legislative outcomes to inquire how economic, political and other forces interact when a given reform effort reaches the legislative halls of the states.     

POLICY-MAKING IN THE AMERICAN STATES: TYPOLOGY, PROCESS, AND INSTITUTIONS

The three levels of government in the U.S. federal system maintain a different set of policy priorities because they operate under varying environmental constraints and resources. Efforts to categorize and specify the politics in terms of policy types have been particularly fruitful at both the federal (e.g., Lowi) and the local (e.g., Peterson) levels. At the state level, however, the typology perspective has yet to be more fully developed. This paper makes a preliminary effort to construct a typology framework in understanding state politics and policy. First, politics can be differentiated between growth and redistribution in the structural economic context. While redistributive politics are largely structured by class-oriented issues, growth politics are predominantly shaped by territorial concerns that temper class and ideological differences. Equally important, the growth-redistribution distinction can be supplemented by the politics of routine services, such as public education. The latter remains dominated by service-provider groups. Moreover, based on an empirical analysis of hundreds of bills in one state legislature, these political differences are found to have contributed to variations in policy consensus among lawmakers as well as interest group representation in agenda setting and legitimation across policy arenas. Our findings also suggest limitations to the typology framework.