The vast majority of states have implemented some version of enterprise zone (EZ) programs, which geographically target economic development efforts to revitalize distressed areas. While EZs have been studied extensively, there is little evidence that they have succeeded. Despite this, the number of programs, the number of EZs designated, and the land area covered by these zones have grown over time. This essay reviews the research on state EZ programs and explores why it has not had a greater influence on policy. One explanation we discuss is that the research has not been made accessible enough to policy makers and their staffs. Another explanation we posit is that political decision making that guides policy on EZ programs is influenced by many actors and sources of information not just the academic research literature. The essay discusses how the establishment or expansion of EZ programs may be encouraged by EZ businesses and landlords engaging in rent seeking behavior. The essay concludes by providing some recommendations regarding how the research community can make its work more relevant for state and local policy makers and how policy makers can become better consumers of evaluative research when implementing and refining programs.
Bartik, T.J.1991. Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies?Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
2.
Bartik, T.J.2007. Solving the problems of economic development incentives . In Reining in the competition for capital, ed. A. Markusen, 103-39. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
3.
Billings, S.2009. Do enterprise zones work?Public Finance Review37:68-93.
4.
Boarnet, M.G.2001. Enterprise zones and job creation: Linking evaluation and practice. Economic Development Quarterly15:242-54.
5.
Boarnet, M.G., and W.T. Bogart.1996. Enterprise zones and employment: Evidence from New Jersey. Journal of Urban Economics40:198-215.
6.
Bondonio, D., and J. Engberg.2000. Enterprise zones and local employment: Evidence from the states’ programs. Regional Science and Urban Economics39:519-49.
7.
Bondonio, D., and R.T. Greenbaum.2007. Do local tax incentives affect economic growth? What mean impacts miss in the analysis of enterprise zone policies . Regional Science and Urban Economics37:121-36.
8.
Bostic, R.W., and A.C. Prohofsky.2006. Enterprise zones and individual welfare: A case study of California. Journal of Regional Science46:175-203.
9.
Buss, T.F.2001. The effect of state tax incentives on economic growth and firm location decisions: An overview of the literature. Economic Development Quarterly15:90-105.
10.
Busso, M., and P. Kline.2008. Do local economic development programs work? Evidence from the Federal Empowerment Zone program. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1638, Yale Economics Department Working Paper No. 36, April 2009. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090838
11.
Copland, G.W., and K.J. Meier.1984. Pass the biscuits, pappy: Congressional decision-making and federal grants. American Politics Quarterly12:3-21.
12.
Courant, P.N.1994. How would you know a good economic development policy if you tripped over one? Hint: Don’t just count jobs. National Tax Journal47:863-61.
13.
Dabney, D.1991. Do enterprise zone incentives affect business location decisions? Economic Development Quarterly5:47-68.
14.
Dowall, D.E.1996. An evaluation of California’s enterprise zone programs . Economic Development Quarterly10:352-68.
15.
Elling, R.C., and A.W. Sheldon.1991. Comparative analyses of state enterprise zone programs. In Enterprise zones: New directions in economic development, ed. R. E. Green, 136-54. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Elvery, J.A.2009. The impact of enterprise zones on resident employment . Economic Development Quarterly23:44-59.
17.
Engberg, J., and R. Greenbaum.1999. State enterprise zones and local housing markets. Journal of Housing Research10:163-87.
18.
Erickson, R.A., and S.W. Friedman.1990. Enterprise zones: 2. A comparative analysis of zone performance and state government policies. Environment and Planning C8:363-78.
19.
Espey, M.1998. Gasoline demand revisited: An international meta-analysis of elasticities. Energy Economics20:273-95.
20.
Gabe, T.M., and D.S. Kraybill.1998. Tax incentive requests and offers in a state economic development program. Review of Regional Studies28:1-14.
21.
---. 2002. The effect of state economic development incentives on employment growth of establishments. Journal of Regional Science42:703-30.
22.
Gallet, C.A.2007. The demand for alcohol: A meta-analysis of elasticities . The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics51:121-35.
23.
Gallet, C.A., and J.A. List.2003. Cigarette demand: A meta-analysis of elasticities. Health Economics12:821-35.
24.
Grasso, P., and S. Crosse.1991. Enterprise zones: Maryland case study . In Enterprise zones: New directions in economic development , ed. R. E. Green, 122-35. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Greenbaum, R.T.2004. Siting it right: Do states target economic distress when designating enterprise zones? Economic Development Quarterly18:67-80.
26.
Greenbaum, R.T., and D. Bondonio.2004. Losing focus: A comparative evaluation of spatially targeted economic revitalization programs in the US and the EU . Regional Studies38:319-34.
27.
Greenbaum, R.T., and J.E. Engberg.2004. The impact of state enterprise zones on urban manufacturing establishments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23:315-39.
28.
Gupta, S., and C.W. Swenson.2001. Rent seeking by agents of the firm. Unpublished Manuscript. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=278445 (accessed April 2001).
29.
Hirasuna, D., and J. Michael.2005. Enterprise zones: A review of the economic theory and empirical evidence. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota House of Representatives, Research Department.
30.
Jud, D., and M. Parkinson.1990. Leadership and urban regeneration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
Krupka, D.J., and D.S. Noonan.2009. Empowerment zones, neighborhood change and owner occupied housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics . 39:386-396.
32.
Landers, J.2006. Why don’t enterprise zones work? Estimates of the extend that EZ benefits are capitalized into property values. The Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy36:15-30.
33.
Lehman, J.S.1994. Updating urban policy. In Confronting poverty: Prescriptions for change, eds. S. H. Danziger , G. D. Sandefu, and D. H. Weinberg, 226-52. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
Logan, W., and L.A. Barron.1991. Florida’s enterprise zone program: The program after sunset. In Enterprise zones: New directions in economic development, ed. R. E. Green , 91-104. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Markusen, A., and A. Glasmeier.2008. Overhauling and revitalizing federal economic development programs. Economic Development Quarterly22:83-91.
36.
Markusen, A., and K. Nesse.2007. Institutional and political determinants of incentive competition. In Reining in the competition for capital, ed. A. Markusen, 1-41. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
37.
Moore, W.S.2003. Enterprise zones, firm attraction and retention: A study of the California enterprise zone program. Public Finance and Management3:376-92.
38.
Neumark, D., and J. Kolko.2008, December. Do enterprise zones create jobs? Evidence from California’s enterprise zone program. NBER Working Paper Series w14530, March 2009. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1312625
39.
Oakley, D., and H. Tsao.2006. A new way of revitalizing urban communities? Assessing the impact of the Federal Empowerment Zone program. Journal of Urban Affairs25:443-71.
40.
O’Keefe, S.2004. Job creation in California’s enterprise zones: A comparison using a propensity score matching model. Journal of Urban Economics55:131-50.
41.
Papke, L.E.1991. Tax policy and urban development: Evidence from an enterprise zone program. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 3945. National Bureau of Economic Research , Washington, DC.
42.
Papke, L.E.1994. Tax policy and urban development: Evidence from the Indiana enterprise zone program. Journal of Public Economics54:37-49.
43.
Peters, A.H., and P.S. Fisher.2002. State enterprise zone programs: Have they worked?Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
44.
Peterson, P.E.1981. City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
Phillips, J.M., and E.P. Goss.1995. The effect of state and local taxes on economic development: A meta-analysis. Southern Economic Journal62:320-33.
46.
Pulsipher, I.2008. Evaluating enterprise zones. Denver : National Conference of State Legislatures, March 2009. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/econ/evalentzones.htm
47.
Quade, E.S.1989. Analysis for public decisions. New York: North Holland.
48.
Rubin, B., and M.E. Wilder.1989. Urban enterprise zones: An analysis of employment impacts of fiscal incentives. Journal of the American Planning Association55:418-31.
49.
Rubin, M.1990. Urban enterprise zones: Do they work? Evidence from New Jersey. Public Budgeting and Finance10:3-17.
50.
Schwartz, D., J. Pelzman, and M. Keren.2008. The ineffectiveness of location incentive programs. Economic Development Quarterly22:167-79.
51.
Talanker, A., K. Davis, and G. LeRoy.2003. Straying from good intentions: How states are weakening enterprise zone and tax increment financing programs. Washington, DC: Good Jobs First.
52.
Tullock, G.1967. The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal5:224-32.
53.
Turner, R.C., and M.K. Cassell.2007. When do states pursue targeted economic development policies? The adoption and expansion of state enterprise zone programs. Social Science Quarterly88:86-103.
54.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).1986. State-designated enterprise zones: Ten case studies. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
55.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).1988 . Enterprise zones: Lessons from the Maryland experience. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
56.
Wilder, M.G., and B.M. Rubin.1996. Rhetoric versus reality: A review of studies on state enterprise zone programs. Journal of the American Planning Association10:473-91.
