Ideological dimensions of state economic development policy: A case-study of the Kentucky-Toyota venture.

摘要

Within the past two decades, the increasing usage of incentive packages by states to retain and recruit industry has forced to the surface oft-hidden ideological conflict. Anachronistic ideological notions of "free enterprise," a bifurcation of spheres of the state and the economy, and a pluralistic polity are now confronted with the reality of explicit, overt state involvement on behalf of monopolistic capital. Drawing from historically-rooted analyses of the production and reproduction of capitalist relations, four models of economic development are posited, each containing six shared ideological components. Utilizing data and policy positions drawn from written sources and information elicited from more than twenty interviews I conducted with the major participants involved with the formulation and implementation of the incentive package awarded by the state of Kentucky to Toyota, this study has sought to explicate critically the ideological framework of each of the four economic development models and to lend understanding to their functions in debates surrounding the Kentucky-Toyota venture. More specifically, by using the incentive package used by Kentucky to "win" Toyota, this study addressed the following questions: (1) Does there exist within the hegemonic ideology of the corporate capitalist state sub-ideologies of economic development? If so, then what is the relationship between these sub-ideologies to ideological notions of capitalism? (2) Does there exist a core commitment to capitalism when confronted with monopolistic corporations, state intervention on behalf of specific interests of capital, and the readily evident socio-economic problems originating from corporate capitalist economy? If so, then what explanation can be given to ideological variation? (3) Does the development of one of the largest automobile assembly plants in the United States in the midst of a small town in rural Kentucky serve to alter existing ideological conceptions of the state, of progress, of economic development? If such shifts occur, do they tend to align more closely with corporate ideology? (4) Does the contestation of this form of state economic development policy lead in the direction of a more thoroughgoing critique of the corporate capitalist system? Does it bring forth a critical reassessment of the "terms of political discourse" by those objecting to this policy?