Do spatially targeted redevelopment programs spillover?

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 86-100

  Hanson, Andrew ^a   Rohlin, Shawn ^b  

^a MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

H25; H32; Industry location; R51; Redevelopment policy; Spillover; Tax incentives

Indexed keywords

EMPLOYMENT; INDUSTRIAL LOCATION; REDEVELOPMENT; SPILLOVER EFFECT; TAX INCENTIVE; URBAN ECONOMY;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84873181402     PISSN: 01660462     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Accetturo A., de Blasio G. Policies for local development: an evaluation of Italy's 'Patti Territoriali'. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2012, 42:15-26.
2. Billings S. Do enterprise zones work? An analysis at the borders. Public Finance Review 2008, 37:68-93.
3. Boarnet M., Bogart W. Enterprise zones and employment: evidence from New Jersey. Journal of Urban Economics 1996, 40:198-215.
4. Bondonio D., Engberg J. Enterprise zones and local employment: evidence from the states' programs. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2000, 30:519-549.
5. Bondonio D., Greenbaum R. Do tax incentives effect local economic growth? What mean impacts miss in the analysis of enterprise zone policies. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2007, 37:121-136.
6. Buss T. The effect of state tax incentives on economic growth and establishment location decisions: an overview of the literature. Economic Development Quarterly 2001, 15:90-105.
7. Busso, M., Gregory, J., Kline, P., 2010. Assessing the incidence and efficiency of a prominent place based policy. Unpublished Manuscript.
8. Chirinko R., Wilson D. State investment tax incentives: a zero-sum game?. Journal of Public Economics 2008, 92:2362-2384.
9. Crump R., Hotz J., Imbens G., Mitnik O. Dealing with limited overlap in the estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrica 2009, 96:187-199.
10. Dye R., Merriman D. The effects of tax increment financing on economic development. Journal of Urban Economics 2000, 47:306-328.
11. Elvery J. The impact of enterprise zones on resident employment: an evaluation of the enterprise zone programs of California and Florida. Economic Development Quarterly 2009, 23:44-59.
12. Greenbaum R., Engberg J. The impact of state enterprise zones on urban manufacturing establishments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2004, 23:315-339.
13. Greenstone M., Hornbeck R., Moretti E. Identifying agglomeration spillovers: evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings. Journal of Political Economy 2010, 18:536-598.
14. Ham J., Swenson C., mrohorolu A., Song H. Government programs can improve local labor markets: evidence from state enterprise zones, federal empowerment zones and federal enterprise community. Journal of Public Economics 2011, 95:779-797.
15. Hanson A. Local employment, poverty, and property value effects of geographically-targeted tax incentives: an instrumental variables approach. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2009, 39:721-731.
16. Hanson A., Rohlin S. Do location-based tax incentives attract new business establishments?. Journal of Regional Science 2011, 51:427-449.
17. Hanson A., Rohlin S. The effect of location based tax incentives on establishment location and employment across industry sectors. Public Finance Review 2011, 39:195-225.
18. Hilber C., Lyytikäinen T., Vermeulen W. Capitalization of central government grants into local house prices: panel data evidence from England. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2011, 41:394-406.
19. Holmes T. The effect of state policies on the location of manufacturing: evidence from state borders. Journal of Political Economy 1998, 106:667-705.
20. Krupka D., Noonan D. Empowerment zones, neighborhood change and owner occupied housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2009, 39:386-396.
21. Neumark D., Kolko J. Do enterprise zones create jobs? Evidence from California's enterprise zone program. Journal of Urban Economics 2010, 68:1-19.
22. O'Keefe S. Job creation in California's enterprise zones: a comparison using a propensity score matching model. Journal of Urban Economics 2004, 55:131-150.
23. Oakley D., Tsao H. A new way of revitalizing distressed urban communities? Assessing the impact of the federal empowerment zone program. Journal of Urban Affairs 2006, 28:443-471.
24. Papke L. Tax policy and urban development: evidence from the Indiana enterprise zone program. Journal of Public Economics 1994, 54:37-49.
25. Rosenbaum P. Inference between units in randomized experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2007, 102:191-200.
26. Rosenthal S., Strange W. Geography, industrial organization and agglomeration. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2003, 85:377-393.
27. Udry C. Gender, agricultural production, and the theory of the household. Journal of Political Economy 1996, 104:1010-1046.
28. Weber R., Bhatta S., Merriman D. Spillovers from tax increment financing districts: implications for housing price appreciation. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2007, 37:259-281.
29. Zhang J. Interjurisdictional competition for FDI: the case of China's 'development zone fever'. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2011, 41:145-159.