Quasi-experimental analysis of targeted economic development programs: Lessons from Florida

Economic Development Quarterly

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 269-285

  Rogers, Cynthia L ^a   Tao, Jill L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Community redevelopment; Endogeneity bias; Enterprise zones; Quasi experimental research design; Targeted development

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMIC POLICY; REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT; TARGETING;

FLORIDA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 3543050663     PISSN: 08912424     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0891242404265399     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bartik, T. (1991). Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute.
2. Blank, R. M. (1997). It takes a nation: A new agenda for fighting poverty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Boarnet, M. (2001). Enterprise zones and job creation: Linking evaluation and practice. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(3), 242-254.
4. Boarnet, M., & Bogart, W. (1996). Enterprise zones and employment: Evidence from New Jersey. Journal of Urban Economics, 40(2), 198-215.
5. Bondonio, D., & Engberg, J. (2000). Enterprise zones and local employment: Evidence from the states' programs. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 30, 519-549.
6. Bostic, R. W. (1996). Enterprise zones and attraction of business investment: The importance of implementation strategies and program incentives. Unpublished paper, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Division of Research and Statistics, Washington, DC.
7. Community Redevelopment Act of 1969. (1980). Fla. Sta. § 163-340.
8. Engberg, J., & Greenbaum, R. (1999). State enterprise zones and urban housing markets. Journal of Housing Research, 10(2), 163-187.
9. Erickson, R. A., Friedman, S. W., & McCluskey, R. E. (1989). Enterprise zones: An evaluation of stage government policies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. Technical Assistance and Research Division.
10. Florida Department of Community Affairs. (1983). A distress atlas. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
11. Florida Office of the Auditor General. (1993). Review and evaluation of the enterprise zone program (Report No. 12003). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Office of the Auditor General, Program Audit Division.
12. Florida Senate Committee on Economic, Community, and Consumer Affairs. (1981, February). A review of community revitalization efforts. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
13. Institute of Science and Public Affairs. (1994). Florida county atlas and municipal fact book. Tallahassee: Florida State University.
14. Isserman, A., & Merrifield, J. (1987). Quasi-experimental control group methods for regional analysis: An application to an energy boomtown and growth pole theory. Economic Geography, 63, 3-19.
15. James, F. J. (1991). The evaluation of enterprise zone programs. In R. E. Green (Ed.), Enterprise zones: New directions for economic development (pp. 225-257). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16. Jones, B. (1990). Public policies and economic growth in the American states. Journal of Politics, 52(1), 219-233.
17. Lambert, T. E., & Coomes, P.A. (2001). An evaluation of the effectiveness of Louisville's enterprise zone. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(3), 168-180.
18. McDonald, J. F. (1997). Comment on Kala Seetharam Sridhar's (1996) "Tax costs and employment benefits of enterprise zones." Economic Development Quarterly, 11(3), 222-224.
19. Mossberger, K. (2000). The politics of ideas and the spread of enterprise zones. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
20. Papke, J., & Papke, L. (1990). State-local tax concessions as urban redevelopment tools: Incentives, subsidies, or windfalls? Proceedings of the 83rd Conference on Taxation. National Tax Journal, 43(1), 215-225.
21. Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (2nd ed). Berkeley: University of California Press.
22. Reed, W. R., & Rogers, C. L. (2003). A study of quasi-experimental control group methods for estimating policy impacts. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 33, 3-25.
23. Rubin, D. B. (1979). Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 318-329.
24. Tao, J. L. (2000). Local economic development policy instruments and issues of redistribution: Market versus government approaches to alleviating poverty in the state of Florida. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, Tallahassee.
25. Tao, J. L., & Feiock, R. C. (1999). Directing benefits to need: Evaluating the distributive consequences of urban economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 13(1), 55-65.
26. Tornqvist, L., Vartia, P., & Vartia, Y. O. (1985). How should relative changes be measured? The American Statistician, 39(1), 43-46.
27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (1989). Rural-urban continuum codes. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/RuralUrbanContinuumCodes/
28. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1980). Characteristics of the population: General social and economic characteristics-Florida (PC80-1-C I 1). Washington, DC: Author.
29. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1990a). General population characteristics: Florida (CP-1-II). Washington, DC: Author.
30. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1990b). Social and economic characteristics: Florida (CP-2-II). Washington, DC: Author.
31. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1988, December). Enterprise zones: Lessons from the Maryland experience (GAO/ PEMD Publication No. 89-2). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32. Wilder, M. G., & Rubin, B. M. (1996). Rhetoric versus reality: A review of studies on state enterprise zone programs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 473-491.