Among 53,334 urban Colorado establishments, geographic information systems (GIS) techniques identify those that are and are not in enterprise zones (EZs). EZs have no effect on payroll per worker. Therefore, subsidy incidence is not on labor. Urban EZs do not increase employment per establishment, implying that subsidies induce net substitution effects for capital that counteract scale effects on labor. Rural EZs increase employment in the smallest of 13,278 establishments, implying that capital is less substitutable for labor with rural production functions and subsidy mixes. Employment effects differ across EZs. Equilibrium incidence of subsidies is probably on immobile factors such as commercial real estate.
Allen, Roy George Douglas.1938. Mathematical analysis for economists. London: Macmillan.
2.
Alm, James, and Julie Hart.1998. Enterprise zones and economic development in Colorado. Center for Economic Studies Unpublished Manuscript, University of Colorado at Boulder.
3.
Beck, Frank D.2001. Do state-designated enterprise zones promote economic growth?Sociological Inquiry71:508-32.
4.
Billings, Stephen.2007. Do Enterprise Zones work? An analysis at the border. Department of Economics Working Paper, University of Colorado at Boulder .
5.
Boarnet, Marlon, and William Bogart.1996. Enterprise zones and employment: Evidence from New Jersey. Journal of Urban Economics40:198-215.
6.
Bondonio, Daniele, and John Engberg.2000. Enterprise zones and local employment: Evidence from the states’ programs. Regional Science and Urban Economics30:519-49.
7.
Bondonio, Daniele, and Robert 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.
Bromley, Rosemary D. F., and Richard H. Morgan .1985. The effects of enterprise zone policy: Evidence from Swansea. Regional Studies29:403-13.
9.
Bromley, Rosemary D. F., and Joan C. M. Rees.1988. The first five years of the Swansea enterprise zone: An assessment of change. Regional Studies22:263-75.
10.
Busso, Matias, and Patrick Kline.2007. Do local economic development programs work? Evidence from the Federal Empowerment Zone Program. National Poverty Center Working Paper Series#07-16.
11.
Colorado Legislative Council Staff.Economic Analysis of Enterprise Zones. 1996. Denver , Colorado.
12.
Report of the State Auditor.Enterprise Zone Program. State of Colorado, Department of Local Affairs. 1998. Denver, Colorado.
13.
Report of the State Auditor.State of Colorado , Department of Local Affairs. 2002 . Denver, Colorado.
14.
Couch, Jim F., Keith E. Atkinson, and Lewis H. Smith .2005. The impact of enterprise zones on job creation in Mississippi. Contemporary Economic Policy23:255-60.
15.
Couch, Jim F., and J. Douglas Barrett .2004. Alabama’s enterprise zones: Designed to aid the needy?Public Finance Review32:65-81.
16.
Dowall, David E.1996. An evaluation of California’s enterprise zone programs . Economic Development Quarterly10:352-68.
17.
Elvery, Joel.2009. The impact of enterprise zones on residents’ employment: An evaluation of the enterprise zone programs of California and Florida. Economic Development Quarterly23:44-59.
18.
Engberg, John B., and Robert T. Greenbaum .1999. State enterprise zones and local housing markets. Journal of Housing Research10:163-87.
19.
Erickson, Rodney A., and Susan W. Friedman .1990. Enterprise Zones: 1. Investment and job creation of state government programs in the United States of America . Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy8: 251-76.
20.
Erickson, Rodney A., and Paul M. Syms .1986. The effects of enterprise zones on local property markets. Regional Studies20:1-14.
21.
Gravelle, Jane S.1992. Enterprise Zones: The design of tax incentives . Congressional Research Service Report for Congress92-476S.
22.
Greenbaum, Robert T.2004. Siting it right: Do states target economic distress when designating enterprise zones?Economic Development Quarterly18:67-80.
23.
Greenbaum, Robert T., and John B. Engberg .2000. An evaluation of state enterprise zone policies. Policy Studies Review17:29-46.
24.
Greenbaum, Robert T., and John B. Engberg .2004. The impact of state enterprise zones on urban manufacturing establishments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23: 315-39.
25.
Hamermesh, Daniel S.1993. Labor demand. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
26.
Hanson, Andrew.2008. Poverty reduction and local employment effects of geographically-targeted tax incentives and grants: An instrumental variables approach. Georgia State University Working Paper.
27.
Kolko, Jed, and David Neumark.2010. Do some enterprise zones create jobs?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management29:5-38.
28.
Lambert, Thomas E., and Paul A. Coomes .2001. An evaluation of the effectiveness of Louisville’s enterprise zone. Economic Development Quarterly15: 168-80.
29.
Lynch, Devon, and Jeffrey S. Zax .2010. Agglomeration economies or Enterprise Zone Program: Explaining the birth, death and net birth of establishments in Colorado. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Working Paper.
30.
Moore, William S.2003. Enterprise zones, firm attraction and retention: A study of the California Enterprise Zone Program. Public Finance and Management3:376-92.
31.
Oi, Walter, and Todd Idson.1999. Firm size and wage. In Handbook of labor economics (Volume 3B), ed. Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, 2165-2214. Amsterdam: Elsevier .
32.
O’Keefe, Suzanne.2004. Job creation in California’s enterprise zones: A comparison using a propensity score matching model. Journal of Urban Economics55:131-150.
33.
Papke, Leslie E.1994. Tax Policy and urban development: Evidence from the Indiana Enterprise Zone Program. Journal of Public Economics54:37-49.
34.
Peters, Alan H., and Peter S. Fisher .2002. State Enterprise Zone Programs: Have they worked?Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
35.
Rogers, Cynthia L., and Jill L. Tao .2004. Quasi-experimental analysis of targeted economic development programs: Lessons from Florida. Economic Development Quarterly18:269-85.
