Correspondence 1992-1993 Waldron

Home

17 encouraging growth did not survive although the Small Cities Economic Development Program, ir�corporating almost no analysis of how economic growth could be affe�ted, cunkinued. �►�i��tions for why programs that incorporated analysis were abolished reveal systematic reasc�ns for eliminating �conomic develogment analysis.29 Ultimately, the technocratic �xplanation is not sufficient and may not even be necessary to unders�id the fail�re of e,c�onomic development programs. This conclusion implies that providing infor,�ation and ana�Iysis about how administrators should be running the progaam to bring about ecunorr�ic growth and to redistribute economic activity in the ways explicitly stated in legislation wAuld not necessarily lead to adoptirig the measures. In addition, new procedures, no matter how corre.ct from a technocratic perspect�ve, would n4t make the prog►a�m suc,�essful. �orces oth�r �han a lack of knowledge or analysis would �ntinu� to interfere vvith achievin� the e�cplicit grogram goals; or, if the program did �dhcre str�ctly ta �cpunocratic criter�a, the p�rogra.m would not survive.70 � : r.:• .. �•�. � Another pc�ssible p�rspective far expl�ining the results of the Small Citi�s �.conomic Development Frogram �omes fram rese,a�°cb �n bur�aucradc behavior and its effects o� prog�r�m result�. Fr�r'r� this poi.nt of vi�w, staxe and 1�1 economic development prograr�s cio poorly at achievin� their expli�it �oals beca�se the geople administering the grogr�ms fa�� inc�ntiv�s and pursue aims that are at l�ast partially inconsistent with acdons ne�ded ta make the programs encourage �nomi� gr��vth and redistribute incom�. Rath�r than trying ta �I?evv�ar, "Developonent A►nalysis Confronts Politics." 'DFor tochnocratic r�commendations for improving the performance of the Small Cities Economic Developmeat Pmgrnm, see Dewar, "Inside State and Local Economic Development Programs. " ,