This paper asks whether regional capabilities and coalitions can shape economic development outcomes in a period of intense structural adjustment. Rapid cuts in defense procurement spending with their associated closure offacilities and elimination ofmillions ofdefense­ related jobs since the end of the Cold War offer an opportunity to probe differences in capability and responses on theparr ofdefense dependent regions in the US and Europe. This paper uses a novel approac pooling across a set of in-depth case studies by the authors and other scholars to compare outcomes. Three kinds of defense regions are examined: 1) military aerospace , 2) military shipyards, and 3) naval bases---i1sing eleven cases drawnfrom three countries (US, Germany, and France). We conclude that regional capability and mobilization can make a dramatic difef rence. Regions more likely to succeed in movingpeople,facilities and technologies into new civilian uses are those with a history ofcoping with industrial decline, a strong public sector held in relatively high regard by its citizens, an ability to tronscend partisanpolitics andjurisdictional competition, and active advocacy for conversion on the part oftrade unimJS, peace activists, community economic development advocates, and/or local businesses. Comparing across nations, national government posture towards conversion can significantly enhance or constrain regional efforts as well. The paper concludes with recommendations to strengthen national and regional level planning approachesfor structural adjustment mare generally.

The enthusiasm surrounding high-technology (high-tech) indus­ tries is in part a response to the prospect of future employment growth and to the expectation that these industries will form the basis of self-sustaining local/regional economies. Currently, how­ ever, states and communities compete for high-tech employment with only a vague understanding of the forces governing the diffusion of high-tech development. All too often they use scarce public revenues to attract these industries with little assurance of long-run returns on such investment.

It is always good to have additional empirical evidence for one's work In her regressions on the relationship between U.S. military procurement spend­ ing and state-level changes in growth rates over the period 1977 to 1986, Elizabeth Bury adds to the body of work confirming a statistically significant and positive correlation between the two. What puzzles us is the interpretation that Bury places on these results, especially her suggestion that they refute our contention about the substantial contribution ofAmerican military preparedness to the economic remapping of the United States. In fact, Bury's formulation comes nowhere near capturing the extent of the phenomena we encompass with our term "the gunbelt."