IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upj/weupjo/03-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating the Impacts of Local Economic Development Policies On Local Economic Outcomes: What Has Been Done and What is Doable?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper argues that more rigorous evaluations of local economic development policies are feasible. Programs that aid selected small firms can be rigorously evaluated using an experimental approach, without excluding firms from assistance, by randomly assigning some firms to receive more intense marketing efforts by the program. Programs that aid distressed local areas can be rigorously evaluated by random assignment of the program among eligible distressed areas. If an experiment cannot be done, a variety of statistical approaches can be used to compare firms or areas that use the program with comparison groups of firms or areas that do not use the program. These statistical analyses should be supplemented with surveys and focus groups with businesses that use the program, which give some insight into why the program works or doesn't work. Evaluations should go beyond the effects of programs on business growth to effects on local fiscal health and the earnings of the unemployed. Evaluations using rigorous approaches suggest that programs providing information services to small manufacturers are frequently effective. Programs targeting distressed areas are ineffective unless great resources are used over a lengthy period.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy J. Bartik, 2002. "Evaluating the Impacts of Local Economic Development Policies On Local Economic Outcomes: What Has Been Done and What is Doable?," Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles 03-89, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:upj:weupjo:03-89 Note: A revised version of this paper appears in Evaluating Local Economic and Employment Development: How to Assess What Works among Programmes and Policies. 2004. Paris: OECD.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=up_workingpapers
    Download Restriction: This material is copyrighted. Permission is required to reproduce any or all parts.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James R. Hines Jr. & Hilary W. Hoynes & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Another Look at Whether a Rising Tide Lifts All Boats," NBER Working Papers 8412, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    3. Timothy J. Bartik, 1999. "The Market Failure Approach to Regional Economic Development Policy," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers,in: John P. Blair & Laura A. Reese (ed.), Readings in Urban Economics: Issues and Public Policy, pages 14-24 W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    4. Hines, James R, Jr, 1996. "Altered States: Taxes and the Location of Foreign Direct Investment in America," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 1076-1094.
    5. Petra E. Todd & Jeffrey A. Smith, 2001. "Reconciling Conflicting Evidence on the Performance of Propensity-Score Matching Methods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 112-118.
    6. William H. Oakland & William A. Testa, 2000. "The Benefit Principle as a Preferred Approach to Taxing Business in the Midwest," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 14(2), pages 154-164, May.
    7. Murnane, Richard J & Newstead, Stuart & Olsen, Randall J, 1985. "Comparing Public and Private Schools: The Puzzling Role of Selectivity Bias," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 3(1), pages 23-35, January.
    8. Edward Vytlacil & James J. Heckman, 2001. "Policy-Relevant Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 107-111.
    9. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    10. Leslie E. Papke, 1993. "What Do We Know about Enterprise Zones?," NBER Chapters,in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 7, pages 37-72 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    12. repec:fth:prinin:455 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 69-85, Fall.
    14. Timothy J. Bartik & Richard D. Bingham, 1997. "Can Economic Development Programs be Evaluated?," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers,in: Richard D. Bingham & Robert Mier (ed.), Dilemmas of Urban Economic Development, pages 246-290 W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    15. Timothy J. Bartik & Peter K. Eisinger & George A. Erickcek, 2003. "Economic Development Policy in Michigan," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers,in: Charles L. Ballard & Paul N. courant & Douglas C. Drake & Ronald C. Fisher & Elisabeth R. Gerber (ed.), Michigan at the Millennium: A Benchmark and Analysis of Its Fiscal and Economic Structure, pages 279-297 W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    16. Charles E. McLure, Jr. & Walter Hellerstein, 2002. "Does Sales-only Apportionment of Corporate Income Violate the GATT?," NBER Working Papers 9060, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Michael Wasylenko, 1997. "Taxation and economic development: the state of the economic literature," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Mar, pages 37-52.
    18. Robert T Greenbaum & John B Engberg, 1998. "The Impact Of State Urban Enterprise Zones On Business Outcomes," Working Papers 98-20, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    19. Joshua Angrist & Alan Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Working Papers 834, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    20. Ronald S. Jarmin, 1999. "Evaluating the impact of manufacturing extension on productivity growth," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 99-119.
    21. Kenneth E. Poole & George A. Erickcek & Donalad T. Iannone & Nancy McCrea & Pofen Lin Salem, 1999. "Evaluating Business Development Incentives," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number gaw1999.
    22. Hines, James R, Jr, 1996. "Altered States: Taxes and the Location of Foreign Direct Investment in America," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 1076-1094.
    23. Timothy J. Bartik & Richard D. Bingham, 1997. "Can Economic Development Programs be Evaluated?," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers,in: Richard D. Bingham & Robert Mier (ed.), Dilemmas of Urban Economic Development, pages 246-290 W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    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 & Wilson, Daniel J., 2014. "State incentives for innovation, star scientists and jobs: Evidence from biotech," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 20-38.
    4. Anna Alberini, 2007. "Determinants And Effects On Property Values Of Participation In Voluntary Cleanup Programs: The Case Of Colorado," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(3), pages 415-432, July.
    5. Adrien Lorenceau, 2009. "L’impact d’exonérations fiscales sur la création d’établissements et l’emploi en France rurale : une approche par discontinuité de la régression," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 427(1), pages 27-62.
    6. Matias Busso & Jesse Gregory & Patrick Kline, 2013. "Assessing the Incidence and Efficiency of a Prominent Place Based Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 897-947.
    7. Feehan, James P. & Matsumoto, Mutsumi, 2017. "Optimal rationing of productive public services under tax competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 79-81.
    8. Timothy J. Bartik, 2003. "Local Economic Development Policies," Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles 03-91, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    9. Matias Busso & Jesse Gregory & Patrick Kline, 2013. "Assessing the Incidence and Efficiency of a Prominent Place Based Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 897-947.
    10. Bijie Ren, 2008. "The regional effects of marginal wage subsidies," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 3(4), pages 598-626, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    evaluation; local; regional; economic; development; Bartik; Upjohn;

    JEL classification:

    • R11 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
    • R50 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - General
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • H70 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - General

    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:upj:weupjo:03-89. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/upjohus.html .

    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 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.

    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.