IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uca/ucapdv/13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantitative methods to evaluate geographically-targeted economic development programs

Author

Listed:
  • Bondonio, Daniele

    ()

Abstract

In recent years an increasing amount of efforts has been devoted, both in the U.S. and within the E.U., to perform impact evaluation of geographically-targeted economic development (GTED) programs. The surging interest for the evaluation of GTED programs is challenged by the difficulty to assess the causality link between the program intervention and the observed changes in the economic outcomes of interest. Evaluating GTED programs is a difficult task because it requires the evaluator to distinguish changes due to the program from changes due to the many factors independent from the program intervention. Such a task is particularly difficult also due to the lack of experimental data available to the evaluator. This paper illustrates the sources of the potential biases that can affect impact estimates of GTED programs when no experimental data are available, and presents a number of statistical methods that control for such sources. As a conclusion of the paper, a number of criteria are developed to select the most appropriate methodology for the analysis, based on the program characteristics and on the type of data available.

Suggested Citation

  • Bondonio, Daniele, 2000. "Quantitative methods to evaluate geographically-targeted economic development programs," POLIS Working Papers 13, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
  • Handle: RePEc:uca:ucapdv:13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://polis.unipmn.it/pubbl/RePEc/uca/ucapdv/bondonio.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blomquist, Soren & Christiansen, Vidar, 1999. "The political economy of publicly provided private goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 31-54, July.
    2. Montrucchio, Luigi & Privileggi, Fabio, 2001. "On Fragility of Bubbles in Equilibrium Asset Pricing Models of Lucas-Type," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 158-188, November.
    3. Sören Blömquist & Vidar Christiansen, 1998. "Price Subsidies Versus Public Provision," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, pages 283-306.
    4. Boadway, Robin & Keen, Michael, 1993. "Public Goods, Self-Selection and Optimal Income Taxation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 34(3), pages 463-478, August.
    5. Balestrino, Alessandro, 1999. " The Desirability of In-Kind Transfers in the Presence of Distortionary Taxes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 333-354, September.
    6. Boadway, Robin & Marchand, Maurice, 1995. "The Use of Public Expenditures for Redistributive Purposes," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-59, January.
    7. Usher, Dan, 1977. "The welfare economics of the socialization of commodities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 151-168, October.
    8. Christiansen, Vidar, 1984. "Which commodity taxes should supplement the income tax?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 195-220, July.
    9. Bergstrom, Theodore & Blume, Lawrence & Varian, Hal, 1986. "On the private provision of public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 25-49, February.
    10. Stiglitz, J. E., 1974. "The demand for education in public and private school systems," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 349-385, November.
    11. Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E, 1996. "Public Provision of Private Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(1), pages 57-84, February.
    12. Gerhard Glomm & B. Ravikumar, 1998. "Opting out of publicly provided services: A majority voting result," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(2), pages 187-199.
    13. Wilson, John Douglas, 1991. "Optimal Public Good Provision with Limited Lump-Sum Taxation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 153-166, March.
    14. Glazer, Amihai & Niskanen, Esko, 1997. "Why voters may prefer congested public clubs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 37-44, July.
    15. Boadway, R. & Marchand, M., 1990. "The use of public expenditures for distributive purposes," CORE Discussion Papers 1990066, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. Stern, Nicholas, 1982. "Optimum taxation with errors in administration," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 181-211, March.
    17. Boadway, Robin & Marchand, Maurice & Sato, Motohiro, 1998. " Subsidies versus Public Provision of Private Goods as Instruments for Redistribution," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, pages 545-564.
    18. Miguel Gouveia, 1996. "The public sector and health care," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 3(3), pages 329-349, July.
    19. Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 1991. "Public Provision of Private Goods and the Redistribution of Income," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 979-984.
    20. Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1982. "Self-selection and Pareto efficient taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 213-240, March.
    21. Dudley, Leonard & Montmarquette, Claude, 1992. "Is Public Spending Determined by Voter Choice of Fiscal Capacity?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 522-529.
    22. Wilson, L. S. & Katz, Michael L., 1983. "The socialization of commodities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 347-356, April.
    23. Ireland, Norman J., 1990. "The mix of social and private provision of goods and services," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 201-219, November.
    24. Blomquist, Soren & Christiansen, Vidar, 1998. "Topping Up or Opting Out? The Optimal Design of Public Provision Schemes," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(2), pages 399-411, May.
    25. Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E., 1996. "Ends against the middle: Determining public service provision when there are private alternatives," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 297-325, November.
    26. Friedman, David, 1977. "A Theory of the Size and Shape of Nations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(1), pages 59-77, February.
    27. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    28. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Privately provided public goods in a large economy: The limits of altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-73, February.
    29. Blomquist, Suren & Christiansen, Vidar, 1995. " Public Provision of Private Goods as a Redistributive Device in an Optimum Income Tax Model," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(4), pages 547-567, December.
    30. Miguel Gouveia, 1997. "Majority rule and the public provision of a private good," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 221-244, December.
    31. James Kau & Paul Rubin, 1981. "The size of government," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 261-274, January.
    32. Munro, Alistair, 1991. "The optimal public provision of private goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 239-261, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    impact evaluation; economic development programs; selection bias; omitted variable bias; one group design; comparison group design.;

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • R5 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis

    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:uca:ucapdv:13. 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: (Lucia Padovani). General contact details of provider: http://polis.unipmn.it .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.