This article examines whether the enterprise zone programs of California and Florida affected the employment probabilities of zone residents. To do this, the author develops a methodology for estimating the effects of programs in which selection for treatment occurs at the neighborhood level, whereas the determination of the outcome of interest occurs at the individual level. This methodology is a combination of individual-level employment probability models and neighborhood-level propensity score matching. Studying programs that provided especially strong incentives to hire disadvantaged workers, the author finds no evidence that these enterprise zones affected the employment of zone residents.
Andrews, D.W.K., & Buchinsky, M. (2000). A three-step method for choosing the number of bootstrap repetitions. Econometrica, 68(1), 23-51.
2.
Angrist, J.D., & Krueger, A.B. (1999). Empirical strategies in labor economics. In O. C. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 3, pp. 1277-1366). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
3.
Bartik. T. J. (1991). Who benefits from state and local economic development policies?Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
4.
Black, D., & Smith, J. (2004). How robust is the evidence on the effects of college quality? Evidence from matching. Journal of Econometrics, 121(1-2), 99-124.
5.
Boarnet, M.G. (2001). Enterprise zones and job creation: Linking evaluation and practice. Economic Development Quarterly, 15, 242-254.
6.
Bondonio, D. (2002). Evaluating decentralized policies: How to compare the performance of economic development programmes across different regions or states. Evaluation, 8(1), 101-124.
7.
Bondonio, D., & Engberg, J. (2000). Enterprise zones and local employment: Evidence from the states' programs. Regional Science and Urban Economics , 30, 519-549.
8.
Bondonio, D., & Greenbaum, R.T. (2007). Do tax incentives affect local economic growth? What mean impacts miss in the analysis of enterprise zone policies. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 37(1), 121-136.
9.
Brooks, L. (2008). Volunteering to be taxed: Business Improvement Districts and the extra-governmental provision of public safety. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 388-406.
10.
Busso, M., & Kline, P. (2007). Do local economic development programs work? Evidence from the federal Empowerment Zone Program. (Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1639). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
11.
California Department of Commerce. (1987a). Employment and economic incentive program: Report to the legislature . Sacramento: State of California, Author.
12.
California Department of Commerce. (1987b). Enterprise zone act: Report to the legislature. Sacramento : State of California, Author.
13.
California Legislature, Committee on Housing and Community Development. (1999, August). SB 511 (Alarcon) Enterprise zones: Where do we go from here? A summary report from the special hearing of the Senate Committee on Housing and Community Development. Sacramento: State of California, Senate Publications .
14.
Elvery, J. (2004). The impact of Enterprise Zones on residents' employment: An evaluation of the Enterprise Zone programs of California and Florida. Unpublished dissertation, University of Maryland.
15.
Engberg, J., & Greenbaum, R. (1999). State enterprise zones and local housing markets . Journal of Housing Research, 10, 163-187.
16.
Florida Office of the Auditor General. (1993 ). Review and evaluation of the enterprise zone program. (Report No. 12003). Tallahassee, FL: Author .
17.
Greenbaum, R.T. (2004). Siting it right: Do states target economic distress when designating enterprise zones? Economic Development Quarterly , 18, 67-80.
18.
Greenbaum, R., & Engberg, J. (1998). The impact of state urban enterprise zones on business outcomes. (Working paper No. 98-20). Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies .
19.
Greenbaum, R., & Engberg, J. (2000). An evaluation of state enterprise zone policies . Policy Studies Review, 17(2-3), 30-45.
Greene, W.H. (2002). The bias of the fixed effects estimator in nonlinear models. Unpublished manuscript.
22.
Hanson, A. (2007). Poverty reduction and local employment effects of geographically-targeted tax incentives: An instrumental variables approach . Unpublished manuscript.
23.
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J., & Todd, P. (1998). Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica, 66, 1017-1098.
24.
Holzer, H.J. (1991). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: What has the evidence shown? Urban Studies, 28(1), 105-122.
25.
Ihlanfeldt, K.R., & Sjoquist, D.L. (1998). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: A review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform. Housing Policy Debate, 9, 849-892.
26.
Kain, J.F. (1968). Housing segregation, Negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 175-197.
27.
Krupka, D.J., & Noonan, D.S. (2008). Empowerment zones, neighborhood change and owner occupied housing. (Working paper No. 3320). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
28.
Lechner, M. (2001). Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. In M. Lechner & F. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Econometric evaluation of active labour market policies (pp. 43-58). Heidelberg, Germany: Physica.
29.
O'Keefe, S. (2004). Job creation in California's enterprise zones: A comparison using a propensity score matching model. Journal of Urban Economics, 55(1), 131-150.
30.
Papke, L. (1993). What do we know about enterprise zones? (Working paper No. 4251). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
31.
Papke, L. (1994). Tax policy & urban development: Evidence from the Indiana Enterprise Zone Program. Journal of Public Economics , 54(2), 37-49.
32.
Peters, A.H., & Fisher, P.S. (2002). State enterprise zone programs: Have they worked?Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
33.
Rogers, C.L., & Tao, J.L. (2004). Quasi-experimental analysis of targeted economic development programs: Lessons from Florida. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 269-285.
34.
Rosenbaum, P.R., & Rubin, D.R. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika,70(1), 41-55.
35.
Smith, J., & Todd, P. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics, 125, 305-353.
36.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1994). Geographic areas reference manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
37.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). Census of population and housing, 1980 [United States]: Summary tape file 3A [Computer file], ICPSR version. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Author [producer], 1982). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
38.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2001a). Census of population and housing, 1970 [United States]: Summary Statistic file 4A-Housing [fourth count] [Computer file], ICPSR version. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Author [producer], 1972. (Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]).
39.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2001b). Census of population and housing, 1970 [United States]: Summary Statistic File 4A-Population [fourth count] [Computer file], 2nd ICPSR version. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce, Author . [producer], 1972. (Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]).
40.
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.
