Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T05:11:42.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biotechnology, State Economic Development, and Interest Politics: a Troublesome Trinity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

William P. Browne
William P. Browne*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48859
Get access

Extract

When finally U.S. political archives are reviewed comprehensively and definitively, one confusing point will still linger unresolved: were the artisans of politics crafting policy in response to visions of a public or a private interest? Portz and Eisinger's comparative analysis of state economic development efforts, with hopes pegged on biotechnology, grapples with that distinction at least by implication. Their instructive article needs revisiting - - and their useful findings and conclusions need follow-up research — because there is logical reason to fear that the strategic planning process is no more or less directed toward the public interest than is private interest advocacy.

Type
Articles and Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , February 1991 , pp. 245 - 250
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

Berry, J. M. (1989). “Subgovernments, Issue Networks, and Political Conflict.” In Harris, R. and Milkis, S. (eds.), Remaking American Politics. Boulder, Co: Westview, pp. 239–260.Google Scholar
Browne, W. P. (1987). “Bovine Growth Hormone and the Politics of Uncertainty: Fear and Loathing in a Transitional Agriculture.” Agriculture and Human Values. 4:75–80.Google Scholar
Browne, W. P. (1988). Private Interests, Public Policy, and American Agriculture. Lawerence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Browne, W. P. (1990a). “Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy Domain.” Journal of Politics 52:477–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, W. P. (1990b). “Issue Niches and the Limits of Interest Group Influence.” In Cigler, A. J. and Loomis, B. A. (eds.), Interest Group Politics. third edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, pp. 345–370.Google Scholar
Browne, W.P., and Hamm, L. G.. (1988). “Political Choice and Social Values: The Case of bGH.” Policy Studies Journal. 17:181–192.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M., Tollison, R. D., and Tullock, G.. (1980). Toward a Rent-Seeking Society College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press.Google Scholar
Cochrane, W. W. (1979). The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Danbom, D. B. (1979). The Resisted Revolution: Urban America and the Industrialization of Agriculture, 1900-1930. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. Leiper. (1955). The Political Process: Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee Relations. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Griffith, E. (1939). Impasse of Democracy New York: Harrison-Hilton Books.Google Scholar
Hadwiger, D. F. (1982). The Politics of Agricultural Research. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Hadwiger, D. F. (1990). “The Theorists of Decline,” revised. Unpublished manuscript. Ames, IA: Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
Haider, D. H. (1974). When Governments Come to Washington: Governors, Mayors and Intergovernmental Lobbying. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1978). “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In King, Anthony (ed.), The New American Political System. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 87–124.Google Scholar
Heinz, J. P., Lauman, E. O., Salisbury, R. H., and Nelson, R. L.. (1990). “Inner Circles or Hollow Cores? Elite Networks in National Policy Systems.” Journal of Politics 52: 356–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. L. (1980). “Theoretical Considerations.” In Johnson, G. L. and Quance, C. L., eds., The Overproduction Trap in U.S. Agriculture. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Lauman, E. O., and Knoke, D.. (1987). The Organizational State. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, G. (1966). Private Power and American Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Rose, A. M. (1967). The Power Structure: Political Process in American Society. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salisbury, R. H., Heinz, J. P., Lauman, E. O., and Nelson, R. L.. (1987). “Who Works With Whom? Interest Group Alliance and Opposition.” American Political Science Review. 81:1217–1234.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1987). “The Limited Applicability of Agricultural Research.” Agriculture and Human Values. 4:4–14.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. S., and Hrebenar, R. J.. (1990). “Interest Groups in the States.” In Gray, V., Jacob, H., and Albritton, R. (eds.), Politics in the American States. fifth edition. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman/Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Tollison, R. D. (1982). “Rent-Seeking: A Survey.” Kyklos. 35:575–601.Google Scholar
Webber, D. J., (ed.) (1990). Biotechnology: Assessing Social Impacts and Policy Implications. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar