What Should EDA Fund?: Developing a Model for Preassessment of Economic Development Investments
This article describes a comprehensive study of regionalism conducted by a joint team of economists and economic development specialists for the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA). The project consisted of two main activities: an examination of the factors associated with economic development success and the creation of a practical interactive tool for EDA project assessment and comparison. Findings from surveys, interviews, and project case studies are discussed in terms of their support for a positive relationship between successful economic development efforts and factors such as leadership and private investment. The authors also discuss the creation of a quantitative assessment model using well-known approaches such as economic impact multipliers and cluster theory. The primary contribution of this work to the existing body of EDA-focused research and evaluation literature is its introduction of a means of using standardized scores, also known as z-scores, to compare and assess economic development projects across both industries and regions.
Volume (Year): 25 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|
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.:
- Timothy J. Bartik, 1991. "Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies?," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number wbsle, November.
- Martin, Randolph C & Graham, Robert E, Jr, 1980. "The Impact of Economic Development Administration Programs: Some Empirical Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 62(1), pages 52-62, February.
- Mark D. Partridge & Dan S. Rickman & Hui Li, 2009. "Who Wins From Local Economic Development?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 23(1), pages 13-27, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:25:y:2011:i:1:p:65-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (SAGE Publications)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.