Relocation subsidies: Regional growth policy or corporate welfare?

Review of Radical Political Economics

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 437-447

  Vogel, Richard M ^a  

^a FARMINGDALE STATE COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Jobs; Regional economics; Subsidies to firms

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034258961     PISSN: 04866134     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/048661340003200309     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Adibi, Esmael. 1996. The impact of state and local taxes on job creation, business failure, and business formation. Journal of Private Enterprise 11 (2): 107-18.
2. Anderson, John E. and Robert W. Wassmer. 1995. The decision to "bid for business": Municipal behavior in granting property tax abatements. Regional Science and Urban Economics 25: 739-57.
3. Balu, Rekha. 1999. Iowa town feels sense of betrayal as Sara Lee Mulls exit. The Wall Street Journal (June 23): B15.
4. Bartik, Timothy J. 1991. Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies? Kalamazoo, Mich.: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
5. Bartolome, Charles A.M. de and Mark M. Spiegel. 1995. Regional competition for domestic and foreign investment: Evidence from state development expenditures. Journal of Urban Economics 37 (3): 239-59.
6. _. 1997. Does state economic development spending increase manufacturing employment. Journal of Urban Economics 41: 153-75.
7. Fainstem, Susan S. and Robert James Stokes. 1998. Spaces for play: The impacts of entertainment development on New York City. Economic Development Quarterly 12 (2): 150-65.
8. Fisher, Peter S. 1985. Corporate tax incentives: The American version of industrial policy. Journal of Economic Issues 19 (1): 1-19.
9. Fisher, Peter S. and Alan H. Peters. 1997a. Tax and spending incentives and enterprise zones. New England Economic Review (March/April): 109-30.
10. _. 1997b. Measuring tax and incentive competition: What is the best yardstick. Regional Studies 31 (8): 751-64.
11. Fox, William F. and Matthew N. Murray. 1998. Incentives, firm location decisions and regional economic performance. In Local Government Tax on Land Use Policies in the United States. Helen F. Ladd (ed.). Pp. 168-81 Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.
12. Glaeser, Edward L. 1999. Help poor people, not poor places The Wall Street Journal (August 12): A22.
13. Goss, Ernest Preston. 1994. The impact of infrastructure spending on new business formation: The importance of state economic development spending. The Review of Regional Studies 24 (3): 265-79.
14. Goss, Ernest Preston and Joseph M. Phillips. 1994. State employment growth: The impact of taxes and economic development agency spending. Growth and Change 25 (3): 287-300.
15. Kelly, Thomas M., James W. Henderson, and Samuel L. Seaman. 1997. The efficiency of tax abatement in the market for jobs. The Journal of Economics 23 (2): 73-88.
16. Kunce, Mitch and John A. List. 1998. Industry chasing and the tax effect: A question of approach. Applied Economic Letters 5 (6): 347-50.
17. Ladd, Helen F. 1998. Tax policies to promote economic development. In Local Government Tax on Land Use Policies in the United States. Helen F. Ladd (ed.). Pp. 116-30. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.
18. Olson, Paulette and Dell Champlin. 1998. Ending corporate welfare as we know it: An institutional analysis of the dual structure of welfare. Journal of Economic Issues 32 (3): 759-71.
19. Rubin, Marilyn. 1990. Urban enterprise zones: Do they work? Evidence from New Jersey. Public Budgeting and Finance 10 (4): 3-17.
20. _. 1995. Business property tax incentives and economic development. In Taxation of Business Property: Is Uniformity Still a Valid Norm? John H. Bowman (ed.). Pp. 111-38. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
21. Sollars, David L. 1999. Development Incentives and Rent Seeking: The Alabama Insurance Tax Case. Working Papers in Business, 99-1. Montgomery, Ala.: Auburn University-Montgomery, School of Business.
22. Tannenwald, Robert. 1996. State business tax climate: How should it be measured and how important is it? New England Economic Review (Jan.-Feb.): 23-38.