David Bier of the Competitive Enterprise Institute makes the case in a recent paper  for the abolition of the Economic Development Administration . The history of the EDA is tied into the programs of the Great Society  which spawned many fiscal and programmatic connections between federal, state and local agencies with the ostensible aim of spurring local economic improvement (e.g.The Community Development Block Grant) . Fifty years on and these programs haven’t lived up to the grandiose mission statements of their architects. The EDA is part of the framework through which stimulus dollars flowed  and Bier’s article underscores the key objections to the application of federal dollars to local economic development.
Interestingly, the EDA has been the subject of several academic studies over the years. The classic public administration book, Implementation , by Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky undertook an early case study of the EDA in Oakland, California with its inaugural goal of hiring long-term unemployed minorities. They conclude that while advocates had “great expectations” the program produced meager results with impulsive project choices and cost overruns. The cause, the authors postulated, was a delay in implementation and cumbersome bureaucracy.
Pressman and Wildavsky seem to have documented a familiar tale of public choice theory: the malincentives present in bureaucracies and tendency toward inefficiency. Their classic book on programmatic breakdown has touched off another debate recently in the literature centered around the question, “What ever happened to the study of policy implementation?” An intellectual dead-end was encountered according to deLeon and deLeon  which can be revitalized by considering policy implementation not from the top-down but from the ground-up.
Pressman and Wildavsky sliced into their analysis in keeping with the dominant theories of the time. They view the EDA in a top-down fashion – as a single federal programmatic entity acting on subordinate levels of state and local government. Since their 1973 classic, advances made by Vincent and Elinor Ostrom and others  point to the fruitfulness of thinking in terms of polycentric  rather than monocentric orders. That is, to consider policies in horizontal instead of vertical terms. Map out the multiple decision nodes that connect government, marketplace and community.
B. Guy Peters in his article, Implementation Structures as Institutions , notes that in the last decade, the public administration literature now strives to make just such connections in understanding how policies are implemented. It’s an important advance which allows for a more complex and nuanced picture of the effects of programs. Such analysis may help answer one perennial question: how is it that small-budget, experimental programs inspired by mid-century economic theories grow deep roots and resist any kind of reform, alteration or pruning for generations?
When we consider federal spending programs and trace their effects we often see the fleeting connections and feel a sense of unease. A former EDA administrator calls the program, “A Congressional Cookie Jar. ” From his vantage point the program is an expense account for politicians to sprinkle federal dollars on their districts. But as EDA grants are scattered among municipal governments, what else happens along the way? How do constituencies coalesce? Who benefits and who loses? Where do the dollars go and how are connections forged between private, non-profit and public sector actors. Metaphorically speaking, how did a single-shot grant in the mid-1960s become an oak forest?