Evaluation of targeted development programs is made difficult by undefined or multiple goals, reliance on inappropriate aggregate units and levels for analysis, and neglect of distributional consequences resulting from development policy choices. This article presents a strategy for evaluating intergovernmental development programs that are targeted to areas of need and applies this approach to two separate state-sponsored economic development programs in Florida communities. The empirical analysis identifies factors that account for cities’ choices to use targeted development programs and the policy instruments used to achieve targeted outcomes. It then assesses the consequences of two of these policy instruments for both economic growth and community development. In doing so, the authors identify the consequences that problem definition and level of analysis choices have for the outcomes of evaluation efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bartik, T. J. (1991). Who benefits from state and local economic development policies?Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute.
2.
Bartik, T. J. (1994). Better evaluation is needed for economic development programs to thrive. Economic Development Quarterly, 8(3), 99-106.
3.
Baum, R. (1987). The economic effects of state and local business incentives. Land Economics, 63, 348-360.
4.
Blakely, E. J. (1989). Planning local economic development: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
Bowman, A. O. (1988). Competition for economic development among southeastern cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23, 511-527.
6.
Clingermayer, J. C. , & Feiock, R. C. (1990). The adoption of four economic development policies in large cities. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 539-552.
7.
Clingermayer, J. C. , & Feiock, R. C. (1995). Distribution and redistribution in economic development: City council support for targeting of economic development policy benefits. Journal of Politics, 57, 508-520.
8.
Clingermayer, J. C. , & Feiock, R. C. (in press). Institutional constraints and local policy choices: An exploration of local governance. Albany: State University of New York Press.
9.
Eisenschitz, A. (1993). Business involvement in community: Counting the spoons or economic renewal? In D. Fasenfest (Ed.), Community economic development: Policy formulation in the U.S. and the UK (pp. 141-156). New York: St. Martin’s.
10.
Feiock, R. C. , & Clingermayer, J. C. (1986). Municipal representation, executive power and economic development policy adoption. Policy Studies Journal, 15, 211-230.
11.
Feiock, R. C. , & Clingermayer, J. C. (1992). Development policy choice: Four explanations for city implementation of economic development policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 49-65.
12.
Kim, H. (1993). The Florida Enterprise Zone Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Tallahassee.
13.
Knott, J. , & Miller, G. (1990). Reforming bureaucracy: The politics of institutional choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
Lindblom, C. E. (1982). Market as a prison. The Journal of Politics, 44, 324-336.
15.
Mintrom, M. , & Ramsey, L. (1995, April). State policy signaling and firm-level employment decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
16.
Pagano, M. , & Bowman, A. O. (1995). Cityscapes and capital: The politics of urban development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17.
Peterson, P. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Reese, L. A. (1991). Municipal fiscal health and tax abatement policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 5, 23-32.
19.
Reese, L. A. , & Fasenfest, D. (1997). What works best? Values and the evaluation of local economic development policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 11, 280-289.
20.
Rolnick, A. (1992, February). Is state and local economic development policy a zero-sum game? Paper presented at the State and Local Economic Development Strategy Summit, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
21.
Rubin, H. J. (1989). Symbolism and economic development work: Perceptions of urban economic development practitioners. American Review of Public Administration, 19, 233-248.
22.
State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs . (1983). A distress atlas. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs.
23.
State of Florida Office of the Auditor General . (1993, February). Review and evaluation of the Enterprise Zone Program (Program Audit Division Report No. 12003). Tallahassee, FL: Author.
24.
Tao, J. (1995, April). City influence in Florida’s enterprise zones: Measuring the limits. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
25.
Tendler, J. (1987). What ever happened to poverty alleviation?New York: Ford Foundation.
26.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . (1980). Census of population and housing: Standard metropolitan statistical areas. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
27.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . (1990). Census of population and housing: Standard metropolitan statistical areas. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
28.
Wolman, H. (1988). Local economic development policy: What explains the divergence between policy analysis and political behavior?Journal of Urban Affairs, 10, 19-28.
