The legacy of the federal government’s Empowerment Zone initiative is contested. The evidence undergirding the initiative’s legacy, however, is based primarily on models that estimate national effects. We use an alternative evaluation strategy that places greater emphasis on local Empowerment Zones as distinct programs. Our findings show that several cities did produce improvements that likely can be attributed to the EZ initiative. The results, however, are not consistent across outcomes or cities. Our findings suggest that what happens locally is a vital concern for federal urban policy and also informative for local communities with responsibility for crafting and executing revitalization strategies.
Busso, Matias, and Patrick Kline.2008. Do local economic development programs work? Evidence from the federal Empowerment Zone program. Working Paper 36, Economics Department, Yale Univ.
2.
Clarke, Susan E.1982. Enterprise zones: Seeking the neighborhood nexus. Urban Affairs Quarterly18 (1): 53-71.
3.
Galston, William A., and Geoffrey L. Tibbetts .1994. Reinventing federalism: The Clinton/Gore program for a new partnership among the federal, state, local, and tribal governments. Publius24 (3): 23-48.
4.
Gittell, Marilyn, Kathe Newman, Janice Bockmeyer, and Robert Lindsay.1998. Expanding civic opportunity: Urban empowerment zones. Urban Affairs Review33:530-58.
5.
Gittell, Marilyn, Kathe Newman, and Francois Pierre-Louis.2001. Empowerment Zones: An opportunity missed. New York: City Univ. of New York, Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center.
6.
Government Accountability Office.2004. Community development: Federal revitalization programs are being implemented, but data on the use of tax benefits are limited. GAO-04-306. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
7.
Government Accountability Office.2006. Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program: Improvements occurred in communities, but the effect of the program is unclear. GAO-06-727. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
8.
Ham, John C., Ayse Imrohoroglu, and Charles Swenson .2009. Government programs can improve local labor markets: Evidence from state Enterprise Zones, federal Empowerment Zones and federal Enterprise Communities. Unpublished paper presented at the University of Kentucky, Center for Poverty Research, November 17, 2009.
9.
Hannan, Peter J.2006. Experimental social epidemiology-Controlled community trials. In Methods in social epidemiology, edited by J. Michael Oakes and Jay S. Kaufman, 341-69. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
10.
Hanson, Andrew.2009. Local employment, poverty, and property value effects of geographically-targeted tax incentives: An instrumental variables approach . Regional Science and Urban Economics39:721-31.
11.
Hebert, Scott, Avis Vidal, Greg Mills, Franklin James, and Debbie Gruenstein .2001. Interim assessment of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) Program: A progress report . Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
12.
Krupka, Douglas J., and Douglas S. Noonan .2009. Empowerment Zones, neighborhood change and owner-occupied housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics39:386-96.
13.
Lemann, Nicholas.1994. The myth of community development. New York Times Magazine, January 9, 26-31+ 50, 54, 60.
14.
Liebschutz, Sarah F.1995. Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities: Reinventing federalism for distressed communities. Publius25 (3): 117-32.
15.
Oakes, J. Michael, and Pamela Jo Johnson .2006. Propensity score matching for social epidemiology. In Methods in social epidemiology , edited by J. Michael Oakes and Jay S. Kaufman, 370-92. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Oakley, Dierdre, and Hui-Shien Tsao.2006. A new way of revitalizing distressed urban communities? Assessing the impact of the federal Empowerment Zone Program . Journal of Urban Affairs28 (5): 443-71.
17.
Rosenbaum, P.R., and D.B. Rubin.1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika70:41-55.
18.
Rubin, Marylin Marks.1994. Can reorchestration of historical themes reinvent government? A case study of the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities Act of 1993 . Public Administration Review54 (2): 161-69.
19.
Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell .2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
Smyth, Katya Fels, and Lisbeth B. Schorr .2009. A lot to lose: A call to rethink what constitutes evidence in finding social interventions that work . Malcom Weiner Center for Social Policy Working Paper Series, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ ..
21.
Stoker, Robert P., and Michael J. Rich .2006. Lessons and limits: The limits of tax incentives for rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Katrina. Brookings Policy Brief, August 2006. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Politics Program.
22.
Stone, Clarence N.1989. Regime politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
23.
U.S. Census Bureau.1990. Census of population, 1990, summary tape file 3. http://factfinder.census.gov.
24.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.1994a. The President’s Community Enterprise Board: Building communities together: Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities application guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
25.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.1994b. The President’s Community Enterprise Board: Building communities together: Guidebook, federal programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
26.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.2003. Tax incentive guide for businesses in the renewal communities, Empowerment Zones, and Enterprise Communities, FY 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
27.
Walker, Christopher.2002. Community development corporations and their changing support systems. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
28.
Wright, David J., Richard P. Nathan, Michael J. Rich & Associates1996. Building a community plan for strategic change. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Albany: State Univ. of New York-Albany, Rockefeller Institute of Government.
29.
Wright, David J., Richard P. Nathan, Michael J. Rich & Associates1997. Investing in a new future: Special report on community development financing in selected Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community sites. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Albany: State Univ. of New York-Albany, Rockefeller Institute of Government.
