Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T01:24:22.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The States And Biotechnology: Interests, Strategies, and Dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Mack C. Shelley II
Mack C. Shelley II*
Affiliation:
Political Science Department and Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State Universtity, Ames, Iowa, 50011
Get access

Extract

John Portz and Peter Eisinger have provided a valuable conceptual overview of state government initiatives for economic development through biotechnology. Their three major models of policy choice - - based on interest-group processes, strategic planning, and competing interest groups in the allocation of planned development initiatives — seem to be sound theoretically and are convincingly examined empirically. Further, Portz and Eisinger provide a wealth of information regarding comparative state efforts at stimulating economic innovation, the differing state political dynamics underlying alternative development strategies, and differences in how such strategies have been implemented. Their analysis represents an important contribution to the current literature on comparative state economic development policy.

Type
Articles and Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , February 1991 , pp. 240 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Academe. (1990). (September/October): 9–26.Google Scholar
Koven, S. G. and Shelley, M. C. II. (1989). “Public Policy Effects on Net Urban Migration.” Policy Studies Journal 17(4): 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichel, B. J., Lasley, P., Woodman, W. F., and Shelley, M. C. II. (1988). “Economic Development and Biotechnology: Public Policy Response to the Farm Crisis in Iowa.” Agriculture and Human Values 5(3): 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelley, M. C. II, Woodman, W. F., Reichel, B. J., and Kinney, W.. (1990, in press). “State Legislators and Economic Development: University-Industry Relationships and the Role of Government in Biotechnology.” Policy Studies Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelley, M. C. II, Woodman, W. F., Reichel, B. J., and Lasley, Paul. (1988). “On the Role of Universities and Biotechnology in Economic Development and Public Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 17 (1): 156- 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelley, M. C. II, Woodman, W. F., Reichel, B. J., and Lasley, P.. (1990). “Economic Development and Public Policy: What Is the Role for Biotechnology?” In Webber, David J. (ed.), Biotechnology: Assessing Social Impacts and Policy Implications. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, pp. 181–198.Google Scholar