The Politics of “Entrepreneurial” Economic Development Policy of States in the U.S.

“Entrepreneurial” economic development strategies at the state level in the United States, which focus on nurturing home‐grown, high‐growth businesses, lack immediate payoffs for politically powerful constituencies, a condition that would seem likely to limit their appeal compared to the alternative “locational” strategy of attracting large investments from elsewhere. Nonetheless, many U.S. states have added programs with entrepreneurial attributes to their economic development portfolios in recent years. This paper explores how the political obstacles to such programs have been overcome. In a few cases, an institutional innovation in the policy‐making process drew in new participants who provided ideas for and support to programs with entrepreneurial attributes. More commonly, the preferences of executive branch officials, especially governors, appear to have been critical to the enactment and implementation of such programs. This finding suggests that economic development policy making may be more technocratic than is commonly believed.     

A New Era for Think Tanks in Public Policy? International Trends,Australian Realities

Although the powerful have always sought advice from the knowledgeable, it took the appeal of the policy sciences movement of the late 1940s and onward to build and consolidate a veritable industry of policy analysis and advice. ¹ One of the hallmarks of this development was the advent of institutes that were exclusively devoted to produce research‐based policy arguments and to inject these into the policy‐making process. These organisations were referred to as ‘think tanks’. Half a century later, the project of the policy sciences movement has been amply criticised, and has mutated into various philosophies of policy analysis, each harbouring distinct and often conflicting perspectives on the nature and role of (scientific) knowledge in the battle of arguments that is public policy‐making. The first wave of the policy sciences movement's privileging of science‐based policy has not disappeared. In fact it is currently experiencing a revival under the banner of ‘evidence‐based policy’. But it has to compete with other views of public policy‐making which deconstruct the authority claim of scientific knowledge, emphasising instead its contestability. Yet there are now more organisations that refer to themselves, or can be labelled, as ‘think tanks’ than ever before. Why? And what does it mean to be a ‘think tank’ in the post‐positivist era and in the increasingly boundary‐less, highly networked societies of today? This article first surveys recent developments in the world of think tanks as reported by the international literature on the subject, and then examines the implications for understanding the nature and role of Australian think tanks.     

Book Reviews

Books reviewed: Alan Campbell, Nina Fishman and John McIlroy (eds.), British Trade Unions and Industrial Politics; Volume One: The Post‐war Compromise, 1945‐‐64; Volume Two: The High Tide of Trade Unionism, 1964‐79 Robert E. Lane, The Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies Peter Self, Rolling Back the Market: Economic Dogma and Political Choice Anne Phillips, Which Equalities Matter? Royden J. Harrison, The Life and Times of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, 1858‐‐1905: The Formative Years Tim Judah, Kosovo: War and Revenge Michael J. Hogan (ed.), The Ambiguous Legacy: US Foreign Relations in the ‘American Century’ Eric Roll, Where Are We Going? The Next Twenty Years Dennis Smith and Sue Wright (eds.), Whose Europe? The Turn Towards Democracy Meg Russell, Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas The Wakeham Report, A House for the Future: The Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords Anthony D. Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation Phil Mullan, The Imaginary Time Bomb: Why an Ageing Population is not a Social Problem     

Personality and criminality a summary and implications of the literature

Recent studies purporting to correlate criminality and personality are reviewed to update the earlier works of Schuessler and Cressey, and Waldo and Dinitz. It was found that fifty-two different tests were used in the recent literature compared with the twenty-nine different tests found both in the Schuessler-Cressey and Waldo-Dinitz works. It was also found that more recent tests are no better at differentiating between the criminal and noncriminal than the older tests were, although the majority of the current tests find more differences within the groups.