1. For example, Lawrence, Robert Z. and Litan, Robert E., Saving Free Trade: A Pragmatic Approach (Washington, D.C., 1986)Google Scholar; Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Rosen, Howard F., Trade Policy for Troubled Industries (Washington, D.C., March 1986)Google Scholar.

2. Manufacturing Studies Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Toward a New Era in U.S. Manufacturing: The Need for a National Vision (Washington, D.C., 1986)Google Scholar; President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, Global Competition: The New Reality (Washington, D.C., 1 January 1985), vol. 1Google Scholar.

3. Bluestone, Barry and Harrison, Bennett, The Deindustrialization of America (New York, 1982)Google Scholar; Marshall, Ray, Unheard Voices (New York, 1987), 297–302Google Scholar.

4. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Industrial Policy: Hearings Before the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, 98th Cong., 1st sess., Washington, D.C., 1983; Richard Corrigan, “Choosing Winners and Losers,” National Journal, 26 February 1983: 416ff., and related articles; Stuart Auerbach, “Getting Competitive,” Washington Post National Weekly, 22 December 1986, 22; Alan Murray, “Economic Tug-of-War in the Dukakis Camp,” Wall Street Journal, 18 July 1988, 1; Paul Blustein and Evelyn Richards, “If It Looks Like a Duck and Walks Like a Duck, Does That Make It an Industrial Policy?” Washington Post National Weekly, 15–21 May 1989, 31; John Markoff, “Pentagon's Technology Chief Out,” New York Times, 21 April 1990, 17; James P. Gannon, “An Industrial Policy Is the Centerpiece of the Democrats' Plan to Win the Presidency and Save the Economy,” Detroit News, 1 March 1992, IB; Robert Kuttner, “Facing Up to Industrial Policy,” New York Times Magazine, 19 April 1992, 22ff.

5. Steven Greenhouse, “Hardly Laissez-Faire,” New York Times, 27 June 1992, 9.

6. Hobart Rowen, “‘Cautious Activism’ on Trade,” Washington Post National Weekly, 1–7 February 1993, 5; John Mintz and Richard M. Weintraub, “The Right Stuff or Plane Foolishness?” Washington Post National Weekly, 8–14 March 1993, 21–22.

7. Eizenstat, Stuart E., “Commentaries,” in The Politics of Industrial Policy, ed. Barfield, Claude E. and Schambra, William A. (Washington, D.C., 1986), 333ffGoogle Scholar.

8. For example, Schultze, Charles L., “Industrial Policy: A Dissent,” The Brookings Review 2:1 (Fall 1983)Google Scholar; Bardach, Eugene, “Implementing Industrial Policy,” in The Industrial Policy Debate, ed. Johnson, Chalmers (San Francisco, 1984)Google Scholar; George C. Eads, “Commentary,” in Industrial Change and Public Policy, a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Mo., August 1983.

9. Raymond Vernon, “Bailouts and Bureaucracy,” review of Losing Time: The Industrial Policy Debate by Graham, Otis L. Jr., Technology Review 95 (August–September 1992): 75Google Scholar. See also Dietrich's argument that the United States has to develop a strong central state and a top professional bureaucracy in order to have a successful industrial policy (Dietrich, William S., In the Shadow of the Rising Sun: The Political Roots of American Economic Decline [University Park, Pa., 1991], 248)Google Scholar.

10. Schultze, “Industrial Policy: A Dissent,” 9.

11. Casey, Terrence C., “The Clinton Administration and the Industrial Policy Question,” Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies 18:1 (Spring 1992): 52–57Google Scholar.

12. Wade, Robert, Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton, 1990)Google Scholar.

13. Zysman, John, Governments, Markets, and Growth: Financial Systems and the Politics of Industrial Change (Ithaca, N.Y., 1983), 281Google Scholar.

14. Yamamura, Kozo and Vandenberg, Jan, “Japan's Rapid-Growth Policy on Trial: The Television Case,” in Law and Trade Issues of the Japanese Economy: American and Japanese Perspectives, ed. Saxonhouse, Gary R. and Yamamura, Kozo (Seattle, 1986), 268–69Google Scholar.

15. Johnson, Chalmers, “Introduction: The Idea of Industrial Policy,” in The Industrial Policy Debate, ed. Johnson, Chalmers (San Francisco, 1984), 16Google Scholar.

16. McCraw, Thomas K., “America Versus Japan: Conclusions and Implications,” in America Versus Japan, ed. McCraw, Thomas K. (Boston, 1986), 381Google Scholar.

17. For example, Robert Kuttner, “Commentary,” in Industrial Change and Public Policy; Barry Bluestone, then professor of economics, Boston College, personal communication with the author at the Salzburg Seminar, Salzburg, Austria, February 1985; James Fallows, “Looking at the Sun,” Atlantic Monthly, November 1993.

18. Graham, Otis L. Jr., Losing Time: The Industrial Policy Debate (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), esp. 270ffGoogle Scholar.

19. Troubled manufacturing sectors have received benefits from depreciation changes, tax breaks, regulatory changes, and other measures either with the specific aim of helping or without, through implicit, accidental industrial policy; but they have rarely been the target of comprehensive programs meant to take an overall approach to revitalizing sectors. This article does not consider fragmented or accidental aid nor does it consider major assistance to specific firms—trade restrictions on behalf of Harley-Davidson, for example, or loan guarantees for Chrysler Corporation in 1979 and for Lockheed Corporation in 1971.

20. Release, Office of the White House Press Secretary, The White House, Washington, D.C., 2 May 1961, reproduced in U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Impact of Imports and Exports on Employment (Textiles): Hearings Before Committee on Education and Labor, 87th Cong., 1st sess., July 1961, pt. 4, 131; “Memorandum for Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Housing and Urban Development; Special Representative for Trade Negotiations; Administrator, Small Business Administration; Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers from President Jimmy Carter,” 1 April 1977, in Department of Commerce files on the footwear industry program, National Records Center, Suitland, Md.; “Report to the President: A Comprehensive Program for the Steel Industry,” prepared by the Interagency Task Force, chaired by Treasury Under Secretary Anthony M. Solomon, 6 December 1977, International Legal Materials 17 (July 1978): 955–81; “Textile Tariff Veto,” President Jimmy Carter, 10 November 1978, in “Presidential Messages,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac (1978): 67E–68E; John Dunlop, professor of economics, Harvard University, personal communication with the author, Cambridge, Mass., August 1985; “A Program for the American Steel Industry, Its Workers and Communities,” The White House, 30 September 1980; Dan Morgan, “Carter Unveils Plans to Aid Auto Industry,” Washington Post, 9 July 1980, Al, A4; Peter Behr, “Auto Pact: Historic Industry Policy Shift,” Washington Post, 10 July 1980, Bl; Marshall, Unheard Voices, 242; Office of the White House Press Secretary, “Economic Program for the Eighties,” fact sheet, The White House, Washington, D.C., 28 August 1980.

21. For example, see Congressional Record, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 21 March 1961, vol. 107: 4368–93; U.S. Congress, Senate, Problems of the Domestic Textile Industry: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 85th Cong., 2d sess., pts. 1–5, July–December 1958; U.S. Congress, Senate, Problems of the Domestic Textile Industry: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 87th Cong., 1st sess., February 1961; letter from Representative Carl Vinson to President John F. Kennedy, 24 March 1961, President's Office Collection, Box 94, “Textile Advisory Committee” folder, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Dorchester, Mass., U.S. International Trade Commission, “Footwear: Report to the President on Investigation No. TA-201–18 under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974,” Publication 799, Washington, D.C., February 1977, 4; “Report to the President”; “The Policy: Senators' Plea to Restrict Shoe Imports Could Signal Revival of Protectionism,” Washington Post, 11 April 1977, 1; Congressional Record, Senate, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 24 February 1977, 5165–67; Congressional Record, House, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 17 March 1977: 7899–900; “Imports: ‘The Bell Tolls for All of Us,’” New York Times, 16 April 1977, 24; Hobart Rowen, “Steel Dumped by Five Japanese Firms, Dept. of Treasury Tentatively Rules,” Washington Post, 4 October 1977, D7; Greg Conderacci, “Carter Is Scrambling to Develop a Program to Aid the Steel Industry,” Wall Street Journal, 12 October 1977, 1, 34; Art Pine, “Congress Hits Hard on Steel,” Washington Post, 21 September 1977, El; Art Pine, “Seven-Party Steel Aid Package Sent to Carter for Review,” Washington Post, 5 October 1977, Bl, B2; Lenway, Stephanie Ann, The Politics of U.S. International Trade (Marshfield, Mass., 1985), 107ff.Google Scholar; Maxwell Glen, “Will the Textile Industry Spoil the Trade Pact?” National Journal, 16 December 1978, 2013; Myer Feldman, deputy special counsel to the President, recorded interview by Charles T. Morrissey, 6 March 1966, 138–42, John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Program, Dorchester, Mass.; Seymour E. Harris, senior consultant to the Secretary of the Treasury, recorded interview by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., 16–17 June 1964, 63, John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Program, Dorchester, Mass.; Aggarwal, Vinod K. with Stephan Haggard, “The Politics of Protection in the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industries,” in American Industry in International Competition, ed. Zysman, John and Tyson, Laura (Ithaca, N.Y., 1983), 278–79, 305–6Google Scholar; “First Test on Foreign Trade,” New York Times, 11 February 1977, 26; “An Opportunity for U.S. to Act to Stem Protectionist Tide,” New York Times, 22 March 1977, 63; “Strauss Is Leaning to Some Protection on Imports of Shoes,” New York Times, 1 April 1977; “Carter Trade Plan Falling into Place,” New York Times, 13 June 1977, 1; “Whose Shoes?” Washington Post, 28 January 1977, 24; “Shoes, Trade, and Mr. Carter,” Washington Post, 5 April 1977, 18; Richard Wightman, “Shoes Must Vie for Place in Carter's Protectionist Sun,” Footwear News, 14 February 1977, 33; “AIA Asks Carter to Reject ITC Plan,” Footwear News, 14 February 1977, 33; James L. Rowe Jr., “Competing Interests Create a Minefield in Great Steel War,” Washington Post, 16 October 1977, L9; Office of the White House Press Secretary, Briefing by Anthony M. Solomon, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs, 6 December 1977, Anthony M. Solomon Collection, Box 10, Folder: Briefing of Steel Report 12/6/77, Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta; James L. Rowe, “Steel Industry Promised Enforcement, Not Quotas,” Washington Post, 14 October 1977, B1, B2.

22. Feldman, recorded interview, 6 March 1966, 138–42; Harris, Seymour E., The Economics of the Political Parties (New York, 1962), 336Google Scholar.

23. Morgan, “Carter Unveils Plans to Aid Auto Industry”; Stu Eizenstat and Ralph Schlosstein to the President re automobile industry, 1 July 1980, White House Central Files, Subject, Box BE 12, Folder Ex BE3–15 6/1/80–1/20/81, Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta; Stu Eizenstat and Josh Gottbaum to the President re steel industry policy, 26 September 1980, White House Central Files: Subject, Box BE 9, Folder BE 3–10 1/1/80–9/28/80, Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta; Peter Behr, “Carter Aides Split on Demands to Make in Steel Relief Plan,” Washington Post, 29 September 1980, 3; Jane Seaberry, “Five-Year Trigger-Price Mechanism Expected in Carter Steel Aid Plan,” Washington Post, 30 September 1980, D7; Jane Seaberry, “President Unveils Comprehensive Steel Aid Policy,” Washington Post, 1 October 1980, E1, E2; Graham, Losing Time, 42–44.

24. Release, Office of the White House Press Secretary, 2 May 1961, 132; “Memorandum for Secretary of State …,” 1 April 1977, 1; “Report to the President: A Comprehensive Program for the Steel Industry,” 960–61; “Textile Tariff Veto,” 68E; “Remarks to Reporters Following a Meeting with Automobile Industry Representatives,” Public Papers of the Presidents: Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1980, book 2, 24 May–26 September 1980 (Washington, D.C., 1980), 1329; Seaberry, “President Unveils Comprehensive Steel Aid Policy,” E1.

25. “Memorandum for Secretary of State …,” 1 April 1977, 1–2; “Report to the President: A Comprehensive Program for the Steel Industry,” 961, 976–79; Morgan, “Carter Unveils …,” Al; “Remarks to Reporters Following a Meeting with Automobile Industry Representatives,” 1329; Richard Kazis, “Rags to Riches? One Industry's Strategy for Improving Productivity,” Technology Review 92 (August–September 1989): 47; “A Program for the American Steel Industry, Its Workers and Communities,” The White House, Washington, D.C., 30 September 1980.

26. Memorandum, Ambassador Strauss to the President re the textile program in the MTN, and attachments, 8 February 1979, Stuart Eizenstat Collection, Box 291, “Textiles [CF, O/A539]” Folder, Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta; Hickman Price Jr. to Luther H. Hodges, and Report of the Ad Hoc Textile Subcommittee, 15 March 1961, Myer Feldman Collection, Tariff and Trade Subject, Box 25, “Textiles: Textile Advisory Committee 3/61–4/61” Folder, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Dorchester, Mass.

27. Eizenstat and Ginsburg to the President, 7 July 1977, and Lotito to Harman with attachments, 14 July 1977, White House Central Files—Subject, Box TA-28, Folder Ex TA 4–12 5/1/77–12/31/77, Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta; Morgan, “Carter Unveils Plan to Aid Auto Industry”; Sidney Harman, former Under Secretary of Commerce, personal communication with the author, Washington, D.C., October 1985; Ervin Burkholder, former chief of the Footwear Industry Team, personal communication with the author, Washington, D.C., August 1985.

28. Numerous studies have shown that the trade restrictions associated with the comprehensive programs were costly to the American economy. Researchers' measures would be somewhat accurate, taking into account a variety of methodological problems, if their choice of an alternative scenario—no restrictions—were correct. However, the alternative to this trade protection was usually harsher restrictions. See, for example, Morkre, Morris E. and Tarr, David G., “Staff Report on Effects of Restrictions on United States Imports: Five Case Studies and Theory,” Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C., June 1980Google Scholar; Crandall, Robert W., The U.S. Steel Industry in Recurrent Crisis: Policy Options in a Competitive World (Washington, D.C., 1981)Google Scholar; Eichengreen, Barry and van der Ven, Hans, “U.S. Antidumping Policies: The Case of Steel,” in The Structure and Evolution of Recent U. S. Trade Policy, ed. Baldwin, Robert E. and Krueger, Anne O. (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Pelzman, Joseph and Bradberry, Charles E., “The Welfare Effects of Reduced U.S. Tariff Restrictions on Imported Textile Products,” Applied Economics 12:4 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cline, William R., Kawanabe, Noboru, Kronsjo, T. D. M., and Williams, Thomas, Trade Negotiations in the Tokyo Round: A Quantitative Assessment (Washington, D.C., 1978)Google Scholar; Pelzman, Joseph and Martin, Randolph C., “Direct Employment Effects of Increased Imports: A Case Study of the Textile Industry,” Southern Economic Journal 48:2 (October 1961)Google Scholar.

29. Release, Office of the White House Press Secretary, 2 May 1961, 132; “Short-Term Cotton Textile Arrangement” and “Long-Term Cotton Textile Arrangement,” in U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Multilateral Agreements—Cotton Textiles: Hearing Before Committee on Agriculture, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 22 March 1962, 5–15; The History and Current Status of the Multifiber Arrangement, U.S. International Trade Commission, Publication No. 850, Washington, D.C., January 1978; “Other Major Developments Related to the 1962 Trade Act,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1962, 287–88.

30. Letter from Carl Vinson to Myer Feldman, 15 March 1962, Myer Feldman Collection, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Presidential Library, Dorchester, Mass.

31. Analysis of congressmen's positions showed how important the Long-Term Cotton Textile Arrangement was to the vote on the Trade Expansion Act. See analyses in Howard Peterson: HR 11970 Collection, folder on “Congressional Voting Records: Textiles,” undated, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Dorchester, Mass.

32. “Report to the President: A Comprehensive Program for the Steel Industry,” 965–71; James T. Wooten, “Taiwan Agrees to Trim Exports of Shoes to U.S. over Four Years,” New York Times, 15 June 1977, D1; Clyde H. Farnsworth, “Korea to Limit Shoe Sales to U.S.,” New York Times, 22 June 1977, D12; Yoffie, David B., “Orderly Marketing Agreements as an Industrial Policy: The Case of the Footwear Industry,” Public Policy 29:1 (Winter 1981)Google Scholar.

33. Crandall, The U.S. Steel Industry in Recurrent Crisis, 148.

34. Third oral history interview with Myer Feldman, 6 March 1966, Washington, D.C., with Charles T. Morrissey, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Dorchester, Mass., 138ff.

35. U.S. Bureau of the Census, City/County Data Book (Washington, D.C., 1977 and 1983)Google Scholar; Laura B. Weiss, “Labor Unions, Split by Battle for Democratic Nomination, Worry About Reagan Inroads,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 21 June 1980, 1733–37.

36. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook (Washington, D.C., annual volumes, 1966, 1977 through 1987)Google Scholar.

37. U.S. Industrial Outlook 1966; Joseph Pelzman, “The Multifiber Arrangement and Its Effect on the Profit Performance of the U.S. Textile Industry,” and Wolf, Martin, “Comment,” in The Structure and Evolution of Recent U.S. Trade Policy, ed. Baldwin, Robert E. and Krueger, Anne O. (New York, 1984)Google Scholar.

38. Congressional Budget Office, Has Trade Protection Revitalized Domestic Industries? (Washington, D.C., November 1986); U.S. International Trade Commission, Nonrubber Footwear: Report to the President on Investigation Number TA-201–50, Publication 1545 (Washington, D.C., July 1984); U.S. International Trade Commission, Nonrubber Footwear: Report to the President on Investigation Number TA-201–55 (Washington, D.C., July 1985)Google Scholar.

39. Crandall, The U.S. Steel Industry in Recurrent Crisis; Congressional Budget Office, Has Trade Protection Revitalized Domestic Industries?, 54–57; David G. Tarr, “Does Protection Really Protect?” Regulation 8 (November–December 1985).

40. Jane Seaberry, “Auto Industry Relief Plan Outlined by White House,” Washington Post, 7 April 1981, A1; Peter Behr, “Effects of Auto Regulation Changes Unclear: Pleased Reaction from Industry,” Washington Post, 7 April 1981, D6–7; U.S. International Trade Commission, “A Review of Recent Developments in the U.S. Automobile Industry Including an Assessment of the Japanese Voluntary Restraint Agreements,” Preliminary Report … in connection with investigation no. 332–188, USITC Publication 1648, February 1985; Congressional Budget Office, How Federal Policies Affect the Steel Industry (Washington, D.C., February 1987)Google Scholar; Bill Peterson, “EDA Was on Way to Graveyard until Reagan Went to New York,” Washington Post, 20 March 1981, A7; Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 1982 (Washington, D.C., 1981), 406–7Google Scholar; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Budget, First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 1983: Hearings, 97th Cong., 2d sess., March 1982; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, Administration's Fiscal Year 1983 Budget Proposal: Hearings, 97th Cong., 2d sess., February–March 1982.

41. Documents in the files of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.; Lenway, The Politics of U.S. International Trade: Protection, Expansion, and Escape, chap. 5; Stefanie Lenway, professor, Department of Strategic Management and Organization, University of Minnesota, personal communication, Minneapolis, July 1986; Robert S. Small, president, American Textile Manufacturers Institute, “U.S. Trade Policy and the Textile Industry,” National Journal, 10 June 1978, 942; “Two Vetoes, Etc.,” editorial, Washington Post, 14 November 1978, A20; Clyde H. Farnsworth, “Controlling Imports of Textiles,” New York Times, 13 February 1979, D11; Karen Elliott House, “U.S. Trade Chief Hopes for Accord to Cut Barriers,” Wall Street Journal, 13 November 1978, 3; Ambassador Strauss to the President re the textile program in the MTN, 8 February 1979, Stuart Eizenstat Collection, Box 291, Folder Textiles [CF, O/A539], Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta.

42. Fawn Evenson, lobbyist and vice president, Footwear Industries of America, Arlington, Va., personal communication, August 1985; Seymour C. Fabrick, chairman-elect, American Footwear Industries Association, Arlington, Va., to Sidney Harman, Under Secretary of Commerce, 30 June 1977, in files of the footwear industry program, Department of Commerce, National Records Center, Suitland, Md.; Memorandum for the President from Sidney Harman, 28 June 1977, in files of the footwear industry program, Department of Commerce, National Records Center, Suitland, Md.; Footwear Industry Team, “Footwear Industry Revitalization Program, 1978,” first annual progress report, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., September 1978.

43. “Memorandum for Secretary of State …,” 1 April 1977, 2; Burkholder, personal communication, August 1985.

44. Release, Office of the White House Press Secretary, 2 May 1961; “Trade Expansion Act of 1962,” Public Law 87–794, Title III; Bratt, Harold A., “Assisting the Economic Recovery of Import-Injured Firms,” Law and Policy in International Business 6:1 (Winter 1974)Google Scholar.

45. “Agriculture Act of 1964,” Public Law 88–297; “Kennedy Orders Study on Cotton Textile Imports,” Wall Street Journal, 22 November 1961, 3; “Proposed Levy on Cotton Textile Imports Is Rejected by Tariff Commission, 3 to 2,” Wall Street Journal, 7 September 1962, 4; “Statement by the President on the Differential in Cotton Costs Between Domestic and Foreign Textile Producers,” Public Papers of the Presidents: Administration of John F. Kennedy, 1962 (Washington, D.C., 1962), 664Google Scholar; “Advisers Urge Kennedy to Back Plan Cutting Cotton Price to Mills,” Wall Street Journal, 10 October 1962, 10; Paul Duke, “Bailing Out Cotton: Compromise Is Sought in Fight over Subsidy to Aid Textile Makers,” Wall Street Journal, 22 March 1963, 1; “Report to the President: A Comprehensive Program for the Steel Industry,” 976, 972–73; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Air Pollution Control: Recommendation for Alternative Emission Reduction Options Within State Implementations Plans,” Federal Register, vol. 44, no. 239 (11 December 1979), 71780ff.Google Scholar; Walters, Robert S., “The U.S. Steel Industry: National Policies and International Trade,” in The Emerging International Economic Order: Dynamic Processes, Constraints, and Opportunities, ed. Jacobson, Harold K. and Sidjanski, Dusan (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1982), 114Google Scholar.

46. Footwear Industry Team, “Footwear Industry Revitalization Program,” September 1978; Margery H. King, ed., Footwear Technology Symposium: Manufacturing a Competitive Advantage, proceedings of the Footwear Technology Symposium, 1–2 June 1978, National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 527, Washington, D.C., 1979.

47. Walters, “The U. S. Steel Industry”; Comptroller General of the United States, “New Strategy Required for Aiding Distressed Steel Industry,” General Accounting Office, EMD-81–29, 8 January 1981, 6–7—6–8; Lynd, Staughton, The Fight Against Shutdowns: Youngstown's Steel Mill Closings (San Pedro, Calif., 1982)Google Scholar, part 1, chaps. 7, 8; Jack H. Watson Jr., to Gentlemen (of the Ecumenical Coalition of the Mahoning Valley), 9 May 1979, Collection: White House Central Files, Subject, Box BE24, Folder ExBE4-4 1/1/79–1/20/81, Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta; “Report to the President: A Comprehensive Program for the Steel Industry,” 972.

48. “Background technical statement regarding changes in textile depreciation,” 9 October 1961, Myer Feldman collection, “Textiles, Textile Industry, 7/61 – 12/61” folder, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Dorchester, Mass.

49. Stanback, Thomas M. Jr., Tax Changes and Modernization in the Textile Industry (New York, 1969), chaps. 3, 7Google Scholar.

50. Footwear Industry Team, “Footwear Industry Revitalization Program,” annual progress report, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., May 1980; Walter Corson and Walter Nicholson, “Final Report: An Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Footwear Industry Revitalization Program,” Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, N.J., February 1983; Sidney Harman, former Under Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D.C., telephone conversation, November 1985.

51. Miller, Vera, “The Men's Clothing Industry,” in Industry Vitalization: Toward a National Industrial Policy, ed. Dewar, Margaret E. (New York, 1982), 60Google Scholar; Ellen Rosen, professor, Nichols College, Dudley, Mass., telephone communication, February 1993.

52. The textiles mills' prosperity and expansion plans were not due solely to the cotton legislation. Mergers had increased the size of companies and the larger firms had eliminated many of the most inefficient plants. Demand for textiles rose with the escalation of the Vietnam War, increases in auto sales, and growth of the population between the ages of seventeen and twenty-six. Cochrane, James L. and Griepentrog, Gary L., “Cotton Textile Prices, 1965–66: The Microeconomics of Moral Suasion,” Southern Economic Journal 44:1 (July 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ted Stanton, “Mills in ʼ64 Had One of Best Years Since Early ʼ50s, with Help of Cotton Bill; Profit Gains Spur Stocks,” Wall Street Journal, 10 February 1965, 30; Richard R. Leger, “Cotton Bill, Boom Times Provide Best Year Yet for Oft-ailing Industry,” Wall Street Journal, 11 November 1965, 1.

53. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, House Report No. 366, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 6.

54. Cochrane and Griepentrog, “Cotton Textile Prices, 1965–66”; Leger, “Cotton Bill, Boom Times …,” 14.

55. Evenson, Footwear Industries of America, personal communication, August 1985; Footwear Industry Team, “Footwear Industry Revitalization Program 1980,” annual progress report, 9–11; Margaret E. Dewar, “Adopting New Manufacturing Technology: When Can It Help Troubled Manufacturing Industries?” Economic Development Quarterly 2:3 (August 1988).

56. Martha, and Wanger, Bob, “Industry Profiles: A Visit with Footwear Industries of America,” Leather and Shoes 179:9 (September 1985): 4Google Scholar; Evenson, communication with the author, August 1985; Lobbying package on need for trade protection, Footwear Industries of America, Arlington, Va., summer 1985; “Bontemps Resigns; Evenson Appointed Acting President of FIA,” Footwear Manufacturing 180:5 (September–October 1987): 4. Footwear industry trade journals (Footwear Manufacturing, Leather and Shoes, and Footwear Industry News) included no mention of the shoe center after its initial years. Articles on technological innovation investigated the practices of firms that were developing or introducing new production techniques or new materials in shoes.

57. Shapira, Philip, Modernizing Manufacturing: New Policies to Build Industrial Extension Services (Washington, D.C., 1990), 39–40Google Scholar.

58. Dunlop, John T., Dispute Resolution: Negotiation and Consensus Building (Dover, Mass., 1984), 247ff.Google Scholar; Frederick H. Abernathy and John T. Dunlop, “A Summer Study of Research and Development Needs of the Tailored Clothing Industry,” January 1980, reproduced in Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, “Final Report on the First-Year R & D Program for the Men's Tailored Clothing Industry,” vol. 1, 23 May 1982; Dunlop, personal communication, August 1985; Frederick Abernathy, executive director of Textiles and Clothing Technology Corporation, Cambridge, Mass., personal communication, August 1985.

59. Dunlop, personal communication, August 1985; Abernathy, personal communication, August 1985.

60. Dunlop, personal communication, August 1985; Dewar, “Adopting New Manufacturing Technology.”

61. Abernathy, personal communication, August 1985; film produced by TC² and screened at a meeting of the Committee on Manufacturing Technology in Trade Adjustment Assistance, Manufacturing Studies Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., July 1985; Kazis, “Rags to Riches? One Industry's Strategy for Improving Productivity,” 45, 50–53.

62. Footwear Industry Team, “Footwear Industry Revitalization Program 1978” and “Footwear Industry Revitalization Program 1980.”

63. Comptroller General of the United States, “New Strategy Required for Aiding Distressed Steel Industry,” 6–12; Walters, “The U.S. Steel Industry,” 115; Buss, Terry F. and Redburn, F. Stevens, Shutdown at Youngstown: Public Policy for Mass Unemployment (Albany, N.Y., 1983)Google Scholar, appendix B; Lynd, The Fight Against Shutdowns; Michael R. Gordon, “Trade Adjustment Assistance Program May Be Too Big for Its Own Good,” National Journal, 10 May 1980, 765–67.

64. See also Wolman, Harold, “The Determinants of Program Success and Failure,” Journal of Public Policy 1:4 (October 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65. For instance, see Bator, Francis M., “The Anatomy of Market Failure,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 73:3 (1958): 351–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haveman, Robert H., The Economics of the Public Sector (New York, 1976)Google Scholar. For a contrasting view, see Markusen, Ann R., “Planning for Industrial Decline: Lessons from Steel Communities,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 7:3 (Spring 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. For example, see Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67. Yoffie, “Orderly Marketing Agreements as an Industrial Policy.”

68. Barnett, Donald F. and Crandall, Robert W., Up from the Ashes: The Rise of the Steel Minimill in the United States (Washington, D.C., 1986), chap. 6Google Scholar.

69. Reich, Robert B. and Donahue, John D., New Deals: The Chrysler Revival and the American System (New York, 1985), chap. 7Google Scholar.

70. Harman, personal communication; Burkholder, personal communication; Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavsky, Aaron B., Implementation (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1973), chap. 6Google Scholar.

71. For a discussion of the conflict the difference in agency perspective engendered, see Lynd, The Fight Against Shutdowns, chap. 8.

72. By the late 1980s, TC² had concluded this and shifted direction. Kazis, “Rags to Riches?”; Burton B. Ruby, “TC²: Progress Report,” Textile Asia (1990): 73–77.

73. Neustadt, Richard E. and May, Ernest R., Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers (New York, 1986), chap. 13Google Scholar.

74. Graham, Losing Time, 275.

75. Carter initiated a program to develop a synthetic fuels industry. The Reagan and Bush administrations allocated funds to Sematech (a consortium to advance research and development in the semiconductor industry) and financed efforts to promote high-definition television [Graham, Losing Time, 143, 226, 230ff.]

76. U.S. Industrial Outlook 1977; Lynd, The Fight Against Shutdowns; Yoffie, “Orderly Marketing Agreements as an Industrial Policy.”

77. Dewar, Margaret E., “The Industrial Policy Dilemma,” Economic Development Quarterly 6:2 (May 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.