Although enterprise zones have been a popular economic development tool for several years, there is still a lack of evidence on both zone effectiveness and how to improve existing zone programs. This article discusses several evaluation criteria that should be given more attention. First, the article addresses methodological issues in assessing zone benefits, including the importance of comparing places that received zones with a suitably chosen control group of places that did not get zones. Second, the data requirements for enterprise zone evaluation are examined. The link between evaluation and practice is discussed. Zone evaluations must address not only efficiency criteria such as the measurement of benefits and costs but also the question of how to improve the functioning of existing zones. The conclusion is that zone evaluations should pay closer attention to research methodology and strive to document program implementation information that can improve the practice of enterprise zones.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bartels, C.P.A. , Nicol, W. R., & van Duijn, J. J. (1982). Estimating the impact of regional policy: A review of applied research methods. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 12(1), 3-41.
2.
Berk, R. A. , & Rossi, P. H. (1999). Thinking about program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Boarnet, M. G. (1994). An empirical model of intrametropolitan population and employment growth. Papers in Regional Science: The Journal of the RSAI, 73, 135-152.
4.
Boarnet, M. G. , & Bogart, W. T. (1996). Enterprise zones and employment: Evidence from New Jersey. Journal of Urban Economics, 40, 198-215.
5.
Bostic, R. (1995). The impact of the California enterprise zone program on business location and investment decisions. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
6.
Campbell, D. T. , & Russo, M. J. (1999). Social experimentation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Carroll, R. , & Wasylenko, M. (1994). Do state business climates still matter? Evidence of a structural change. National Tax Journal, 47, 19-37.
8.
Dardia, M. (1998). Subsidizing redevelopment in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
9.
Dowall, D. E. (1996). An evaluation of California’s enterprise zone program. Economic Development Quarterly, 10, 352-368.
10.
Dowall, D. E. , Beyeler, M., & Wong, S. (1994). Evaluation of California’s enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs. Berkeley: University of California, California Policy Seminar.
11.
Eisinger, P. (1995). State economic development in the 1990s: Politics and policy learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 9, 146-158.
12.
Fox, J. (1996, November 11). Economics and the enterprise zone: The little policy that could. Fortune, 134, 54-56.
13.
Gittell, R. J. , & Wilder, M. (1993, October). Linking economic and community development: The experience in Indiana’s enterprise zones. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, D.C.
14.
Green, R. E. , & Brintnall, M. (1987). Reconnoitering state-administered enterprise zones: What’s in a name?Journal of Urban Affairs, 9, 159-170.
15.
Green, W. H. (1993). Econometric analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
Gueron, J. M. , & Pauly, E. (1991). From welfare to work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
Hall, P. (1977). Green fields and grey areas. Proceedings of the Royal Town Planning Institute annual conference. London: Royal Town Planning Institute.
18.
Heckman, J. J. (1992). Randomization and social policy evaluation. In C. F. Manski & I. Garfinkel (Eds.), Evaluating welfare and training programs (pp. 201-230). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Heckman, J. J. , & Hotz, V. J. (1989). Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: The case of manpower training. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 862-874.
20.
Hotz, V. J. (1992). Designing an evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act. In C. F. Manski & I. Garfinkel (Eds.), Evaluating welfare and training programs (pp. 76-114). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Isserman, A. M. , & Beaumont, P. M. (1989). New directions in quasi-experimental control group methods for project evaluation. Socioeconomic Planning Sciences, 23, 39-53.
22.
Isserman, A. M. , & Merrifield, J. (1982). The use of control groups in evaluating regional policy. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 12, 43-58.
23.
Johnston, J. , & Dinardo, J. (1996). Econometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
Knudsen, D. C. , & Barff, R. (1991). Shift-share analysis as a linear model. Environment and Planning A, 23, 421-431.
25.
Luce, T. F., Jr. (1994). Local taxes, public services, and the intrametropolitan location of firms and households. Public Finance Quarterly, 22, 139-167.
26.
Mier, R. (1982, April). Enterprise zones: A long shot. Planning, pp. 10-14.
27.
New Jersey Department of Treasury, Division of Purchase and Property . (1996, May 23). Advertised Bid Proposal Number 97-X-24160. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Treasury.
28.
Papke, J. A. (1989). Monitoring Indiana enterprise zones: Analysis and appraisal, year two report. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Center for Tax Policy Studies.
29.
Papke, L. (1991). Tax policy and urban development: Evidence from an enterprise zone program. (Working Paper No. 3945). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
30.
Papke, L. (1994). Tax policy and urban development: Evidence from the Indiana enterprise zone program. Journal of Public Economics, 54, 37-49.
31.
Patterson, M. G. (1991). A note on the formulation of a full-analogue regression model of the shift-share method. Journal of Regional Science, 31(2), 211-216.
32.
Rephann, T. , & Isserman, A. (1994). New highways as economic development tools: An evaluation using quasi-experimental matching methods. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24, 723-751.
33.
Riecken, H. W. (1976). Social experimentation. In C. C. Abt (Ed.), The evaluation of social programs (pp. 37-47). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34.
Rubin, B. M. , & Wilder, M. G. (1989). Urban enterprise zones: Employment impacts and fiscal incentives. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55, 418-431.
35.
Rubin, M. (1990). Urban enterprise zones: Do they work? Evidence from New Jersey. Public Budgeting and Finance, 10, 3-17.
36.
Rubin, M. M. , & Armstrong, R. B. (1989). The New Jersey urban enterprise zone program: An evaluation (Report prepared for the New Jersey Department of Commerce, Energy, and Economic Development). Trenton: New Jersey Department of Commerce, Energy, and Economic Development.
37.
Rubin, M. M. , & Trawinski, E. J. (1991). New Jersey’s urban enterprise zones: A program that works. The Urban Lawyer, 23, 461-471.
38.
Wasylenko, M. (1991). Empirical evidence on interregional business location decisions and the role of fiscal incentives in economic development. In H. W. Herzog, Jr. & A. M. Schlottman (Eds.), Industry location and public policy (pp. 13-30). Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
39.
White, S. B. , Zipp, J. F., McMahon, W. F., Reynolds, P. D., Osterman, J. D., & Binkley, L. S. (1990). ES202: The data base for local employment analysis. Economic Development Quarterly, 4, 240-253.
40.
Wholey, J. S. , Scanlon, J. W., Duffy, H. G., Fukumoto, J. S., & Vogt, L. M. (1970). Federal evaluation policy: Analyzing the effects of public programs. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
41.
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, 473-485.
