IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/11-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the Incidence and Efficiency of a Prominent Place Based Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Matias Busso
  • Jesse Gregory
  • Patrick Kline

Abstract

This paper empirically assesses the incidence and efficiency of Round I of the federal urban Empowerment Zone (EZ) program using confidential microdata from the Decennial Census and the Longitudinal Business Database. Using rejected and future applicants to the EZ program as controls, we find that EZ designation substantially increased employment in zone neighborhoods and generated wage increases for local workers without corresponding increases in population or the local cost of living. The results suggest the efficiency costs of first Round EZs were relatively small.

Suggested Citation

  • Matias Busso & Jesse Gregory & Patrick Kline, 2011. "Assessing the Incidence and Efficiency of a Prominent Place Based Policy," Working Papers 11-07, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:11-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2011/CES-WP-11-07.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bondonio, Daniele & Engberg, John, 2000. "Enterprise zones and local employment: evidence from the states' programs," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 519-549, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Patrick Bayer & Fernando Ferreira & Robert McMillan, 2007. "A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(4), pages 588-638, August.
    4. Baum-Snow, Nathaniel, 2007. "Suburbanization and transportation in the monocentric model," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 405-423, November.
    5. Timothy J. Bartik, 2004. "Evaluating the Impacts of Local Economic Development Policies on Local Economic Outcomes: What Has Been Done and What Is Doable?," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers, in: Evaluating Local Economic and Employment Development: How to Access Waht Works Among Programmes and Policies, pages 113-142, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    6. David Albouy, 2009. "The Unequal Geographic Burden of Federal Taxation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 117(4), pages 635-667, August.
    7. Boarnet, Marlon G. & Bogart, William T., 1996. "Enterprise Zones and Employment: Evidence from New Jersey," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 198-215, September.
    8. Daniele Bondonio, 2003. "Do Tax Incentives Affect Local Economic Growth? What Mean Impacts Miss in the Analysis of Enterprise Zone Policies," Working Papers 03-17, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    9. Stephen H. Bell & Larry l. Orr & John D. Blomquist & Glen G. Cain, 1995. "Program Applicants as a Comparison Group in Evaluating Training Programs: Theory and a Test," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number pacg, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matias Busso & Patrick Kline, 2008. "Do Local Economic Development Programs Work? Evidence from the Federal Empowerment Zone Program," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1639, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Patrick Kline & Enrico Moretti, 2014. "People, Places, and Public Policy: Some Simple Welfare Economics of Local Economic Development Programs," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 629-662, August.
    3. Moretti, Enrico, 2011. "Local Labor Markets," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 14, pages 1237-1313, Elsevier.
    4. Gibbons, Stephen & Overman, Henry & Sarvimäki, Matti, 2021. "The local economic impacts of regeneration projects: Evidence from UK's single regeneration budget," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    5. Krupka, Douglas J. & Noonan, Douglas S., 2009. "Empowerment Zones, neighborhood change and owner-occupied housing," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 386-396, July.
    6. Sumei Zhang, 2015. "Impacts of Enterprise Zone Policy on Industry Growth," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 29(4), pages 347-362, November.
    7. Timothy J. Bartik, 2003. "Local Economic Development Policies," Upjohn Working Papers 03-91, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    8. Zenou, Yves, 2011. "Spatial versus Social Mismatch: The Strength of Weak Ties," Research Papers in Economics 2011:5, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    9. Robert T. Greenbaum & Jim Landers, 2009. "Why Are State Policy Makers Still Proponents of Enterprise Zones? What Explains Their Action in the Face of a Preponderance of the Research?," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 32(4), pages 466-479, October.
    10. Pablo D Fajgelbaum & Eduardo Morales & Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato & Owen Zidar, 2019. "State Taxes and Spatial Misallocation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 333-376.
    11. Daniele Bondonio, 2003. "Do Tax Incentives Affect Local Economic Growth? What Mean Impacts Miss in the Analysis of Enterprise Zone Policies," Working Papers 03-17, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    12. Elias Einiö & Henry G. Overman, 2016. "The (Displacement) Effects of Spatially Targeted Enterprise Initiatives: Evidence from UK LEGI," SERC Discussion Papers 0191, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Miren Lafourcade & Florian Mayneris, 2017. "En Finir avec les ghettos urbains ?," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01884340, HAL.
    14. Carlianne Patrick & Amanda Ross & Heather Stephens, 2016. "Designing Policies to Spur Economic Growth: How Regional Scientists Can Contribute to Future Policy Development and Evaluation," Working Papers 16-04, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    15. Mayer, Thierry & Mayneris, Florian & Py, Loriane, 2012. "The Impact of Urban Enterprise Zones on Establishments' Location Decisions: Evidence from French ZFUs," CEPR Discussion Papers 9074, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Jasper Beekmans & Huub Ploegmakers & Karel Martens & Erwin van der Krabben, 2016. "Countering decline of industrial sites: Do local economic development policies target the neediest places?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(14), pages 3027-3047, November.
    17. Gibbons, Steve & Overman, Henry & Sarvimäki, Matti, 2017. "The local economic impacts of regeneration projects: Evidence from UK’s Single Regeneration Budget," Working Papers 92, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    18. Ham, John C. & Swenson, Charles & Imrohoroglu, Ayse & Song, Heonjae, 2011. "Government programs can improve local labor markets: Evidence from State Enterprise Zones, Federal Empowerment Zones and Federal Enterprise Community," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 779-797, August.
    19. Krupka, Douglas J. & Noonan, Douglas S., 2009. "Neighborhood Dynamics and the Housing Price Effects of Spatially Targeted Economic Development Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 4308, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Oliveira, Jaqueline & Pereda, Paula, 2020. "The impact of climate change on internal migration in Brazil," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:11-07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.