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, April.
- 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.