Economic development policy continues to dominate city agendas as local officials vie for investment and population in the effort to generate a robust local economy. Many times, however, such policies have succeeded in building capital-intensive projects while failing to enhance the community's quality of life. Building on the enterprise zone concept, the Clinton administration's Empowerment Zone Act of 1993 attempts to avoid this pitfall by blending economic incentives and social services, as it establishes a mechanism to incorporate broader local participation in program design, implementation, and evaluation. By examining the context, origins, and dimensions of empowerment zone policy, this article clarifies policy elements, including similarities to and differences from enterprise zones, and prospects of empowerment zones to creat the community context necessary for greater local participation in economic development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Caraley, D. (1992). Washington abandons the cities. Political Science Quarterly, 107(1), 1-29.
2.
Clavel, P. (1986). The progressive city. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
3.
Cohen, D. L. (1995). Empowerment zone proposals prominently featured education. Education Weekly, 19(16), 19.
4.
Corporation for Enterprise Development . (1994). Building for business: Are cities and states selling themselves short?Washington, DC: Author.
5.
Davis, J. E. (1991). Contested ground: Collected action and the urban neighborhood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6.
Davis, M. (1993). Who killed L.A.? The war against cities. Crossroads, 32, 2-19.
7.
DeLeon, R. D. (1992). Left coast city. Topeka: University of Kansas Press.
8.
Dowall, D. E. , Beyeler, M., & Wong, C. S. (1994). Evaluation of California's enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive program (California Policy Seminar and State Government Report). Berkeley: University of California.
9.
Fulton, W., & Newman, M. (1994, March). The strange career of enterprise zones. Governing, pp. 32-34, 36.
10.
Gittell, R. (1992). Renewing cities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Glover, G., & Brownridge, J. P. (1993, June). Enterprise zone as an instrument of urban policy: A review of the zones in south central Los Angeles. Government Finance Review, pp. 15-17.
12.
Gottdiener, M. (1985). The social production of urban space. Austin: University of Texas Press.
13.
Gottdiener, M. (1994). The new urban sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Harrigan, J. J. (1993). Political change in the metropolis (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
15.
Hird, J. A. (1995). Controversies in American public policies. New York: St. Martin's.
16.
Imbroscio, D. L. (1995, August). Alternative strategies for local economic development. Paper presented at American Political Science Association National Conference, Chicago.
17.
Jones, B. D. , & Bachelor, L. W. (1986). The sustaining hand. Topeka: University of Kansas Press.
18.
Katz, J. L. (1993, July 17). Enterprise zones struggle to make their mark. Congressional Weekly, p. 1880.
19.
Keating, M. (1991). Comparative urban politics. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elger.
20.
Kotkin, J. (1993). L.A.'s engine of growth. City Journal (Winter), 64-69.
21.
Levitan, S. A. , & Miller, E. I. (1995). Enterprise zones are no solutions for our blighted areas. In J. A. Hird (Ed.), Controversies in American public policy (pp. 263-270). New York: St. Martin's.
22.
Mahtesian, C. (1995, March). Showdown on e-z street. Governing, pp. 36-41.
23.
Mayer, N. S. (1984). Neighborhood organizations and community development. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
24.
Morgan, D. R. (1989). Managing urban America (3rd ed.). Florence, KY: Wadsworth.
25.
Peterson, P. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Pierce, N. (1995, January 23). They're already working. Nation's Cities Weekly, p. 6.
27.
Rangel, C. R. (1995, May 24). Harlem empowerment zone embraces people and business. New York Times, p. A16.
28.
Riposa, G. (1989). State enterprise zones: Origin, policy context, and administrative complaints. International Journal of Public Administration, 12(1), 19-44.
29.
Riposa, G. , & Andranovich, G. (1988). Economic development policy: Whose interests are being served?Urban Resources, 5(1), 25-34.
30.
Sassen, S. (1994). Cities in a world economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
31.
Smith, M. P. , Ready, R. L., & Judd, D. (1985). Capital flight, tax incentives, and the marginalization of American states and localities. In D. Judd (Ed.), Public policy across states and communities (pp. 181-201). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
32.
Steinberg, J. B. , Lyons, D. W., & Vaiana, M. E. (1992). Urban America: Policy choices for Los Angeles and the nation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
33.
Stone, C. N. (1987). The study of the politics of urban development. In C. Stone & H. Sanders (Eds.), The politics of urban development (pp. 3-22). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
34.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . (1994). Building communities together. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . (1995a). Urban empowerment zones and enterprise communities (HUD-1551-CPD). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . (1995b). State enterprise zone update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
