This analysis uses a difference-in-differences approach to examine the impact of the Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) on economic development outcomes in counties that participated in the program relative to those that did not participate. The RCI was a place-based economic development program that was implemented in Indiana beginning in 2015. Through a competitive process, this program provided funding for projects meant to improve the quality of life in three regions of the state. The results indicate that participating counties had higher gross domestic product growth and higher employment growth than nonparticipating counties. There is limited evidence that the program had a positive impact on population growth. There were no discernable effects on house prices or earnings.
AustinB.GlaeserE.SummersL. (2018). Jobs for the heartland: Place-based policies in 21st-century America. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2018(1), 151–255. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2018.0002
2.
BartikT. J. (1994). Jobs, productivity, and local economic development: What implications does economic research have for the role of government?National Tax Journal, 47(4), 847–861. https://doi.org/10.1086/NTJ41789113
3.
BetzM. R.PartridgeM. D.KraybillD. S.LobaoL. (2012). Why do localities provide economic development incentives? Geographic competition, political constituencies, and government capacity. Growth and Change, 43(3), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2012.00590.x
4.
CameronA. C.GelbachJ. B.MillerD. L. (2011). Robust inference with multiway clustering. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 29(2), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1198/jbes.2010.07136
ElveryJ. A. (2009). The impact of enterprise zones on resident employment an evaluation of the enterprise zone programs of California and Florida. Economic Development Quarterly, 23(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242408326994
FreyaldenhovenS.HansenC.PerezJ. P.ShapiroJ.M. (2021). Visualization, identification, and estimation in the linear panel event-study design [Working Paper]. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29170
9.
GlaeserE. L.GottliebJ. D. (2008). The economics of place-making policies. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2008(1), 155–253. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.0.0005
HamJ. C.SwensonC.ImrohorogluA.SongH. (2011). Government programs can improve local labor markets: Evidence from state enterprise zones, federal empowerment zones and federal enterprise community. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 779–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.027
12.
HansonA. (2009). Local employment, poverty, and property value effects of geographically targeted tax incentives: An instrumental variables approach. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(6), 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.07.002
HansonA.RohlinS. (2011b). The effect of location-based tax incentives on establishment location and employment across industry sectors. Public Finance Review, 39(2), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142110389602
16.
HeckmanJ. J.HotzV. 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(408), 862–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1989.10478848
17.
HeupelD.HicksM. (2013). The future of state and local economic development policy [White Paper]. Ball State University, Center for Business and Economic Research.
HicksM. J.LaFaiveM. (2011). The influence of targeted economic development tax incentives on county economic growth: Evidence from Michigan’s MEGA credits. Economic Development Quarterly, 25(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242410395135
20.
HicksM. J.TerrellD.HeupelR. (2015). Regional cities, small towns, and rural places: Policy Issues for Indiana [White Paper]. Ball State University, Center for Business and Economic Research.
21.
HotchkissJ.MooreR.ZobayS. (2003). Impact of the 1996 summer Olympic games on employment and wages in Georgia. Southern Economic Journal, 69(3), 691–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/1061702
KlineP.MorettiE. (2013). People, places and public policy: Some simple welfare economics of local economic development programs (Working Paper No. 19659). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w19659
24.
KrupkaD. J.NoonanD. S. (2009). Empowerment zones, neighborhood change and owner-occupied housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(4), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.03.001
25.
LeonardT.YangX.ZhangL.ReedC. (2020). Impact of property tax abatement on employment growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 34(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242420911712
26.
MorinT.PartridgeM. (2020). The impact of small regional economic development commissions: Is there any bang after just a few bucks?Economic Development Quarterly, 35(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242420972475
NeumarkD.KolkoJ. (2010). Do enterprise zones create jobs? Evidence from California’s enterprise zone program. Journal of Urban Economics, 68(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2010.01.002
29.
NeumarkD.YoungT. (2021). Heterogeneous effects of state enterprise zone programs in the shorter run and longer run. Economic Development Quarterly, 35(2), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242420982341
30.
O’KeefeS. M. (2004). Job creation in California's enterprise zones: A comparison using a propensity score matching model. Journal of Urban Economics, 55(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2003.08.002
31.
PapkeL. (1994). Tax policy and urban-development – evidence from the Indiana enterprise zone program. Journal of Public Economics, 54(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(94)90069-8
32.
PartridgeM. D.RickmanD. S.OlfertM. R.TanY. (2015). When spatial equilibrium fails: Is place-based policy second best?Regional Studies, 49(8), 1303–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.837999
ReynoldsC. L.RohlinS. M. (2015). The effects of location-based tax policies on the distribution of household income: Evidence from the federal empowerment zone program. Journal of Urban Economics, 88, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2015.04.003
35.
SlatteryC.ZidarO. (2020). Evaluating state and local business incentives. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(2), 90–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEP.34.2.90
36.
SunL.AbrahamS. (2021). Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006
37.
WhiteH. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
