Development impact fees and employment
Development impact fees have sparked considerable controversy as they have spread rapidly in usage throughout the United States. One contentious issue is the effect that these fees have on local economic development. While some scholars have argued that impact fees attract jobs by reducing developers' uncertainty, the development community maintains that they operate as an excise tax, reducing commercial development and driving away jobs. We use Florida county level panel data, from 1990-2005, to investigate the relationship between private employment and different types of impact fees. We find that commercial fees and school fees have countervailing effects, with the former repelling jobs and the latter attracting jobs. These results are consistent with our theory driven expectations. Our investigation also suggests that differences between our results and those obtained in prior studies can be attributed to two factors: the latter studies' violation of the condition of strict exogeneity required for consistent estimation and a failure to account for differential employment effects across various types of impact fees.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Burge, Gregory & Ihlanfeldt, Keith, 2006. "Impact fees and single-family home construction," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 284-306, September.
- Gyourko, Joseph, 1991. "Impact fees, exclusionary zoning, and the density of new development," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 242-256, September.
- Brueckner, Jan K., 1997. "Infrastructure financing and urban development:: The economics of impact fees," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 383-407, December.
- Yinger, John, 1998. "The Incidence of Development Fees and Special Assessments," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 51(n. 1), pages 23-41, March.
- Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. & Shaughnessy, Timothy M., 2004. "An empirical investigation of the effects of impact fees on housing and land markets," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 639-661, November.
- Justin Wolfers, 2006.
"Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1802-1820, December.
- Justin Wolfers, 2003. "Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results," NBER Working Papers 10014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Wolfers, Justin, 2003. "Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results," Research Papers 1819, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
- Yinger, John, 1998. "The Incidence of Development Fees and Special Assessments," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 51(1), pages 23-41, March.
- Gregory Burge & Keith Ihlanfeldt, 2006. "The Effects Of Impact Fees On Multifamily Housing Construction," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 5-23. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)