This article examines the potential for location-based employment tax incentives to have a differential effect on establishment location and employment across industry sectors. The authors model the differential effect of the location-based federal Empowerment Zone (EZ) wage tax credit on equilibrium labor and total cost savings across industry sectors. The model guides the empirical work, as the authors test the effect of the program across industry sectors. The empirical analysis shows that location-based tax incentives have a positive effect on firm location in some of the industries their model predicts and a negative effect in industries that could be crowded out.
Angrist, Joshua, and Jörn-Steffen Pischke.2009. Mostly harmless econometrics: An Empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Audretsch, David, and Talat Mahmood.1995. New firm survival: New results using a hazard function. Review of Economics and Statistics77:97-103.
3.
Bartik, Timothy.1992. The effects of state and local taxes on economic development: A review of recent research. Economic Development Quarterly6:102-11.
4.
Billings, Stephen.2008. Do enterprise zones work? An analysis at the borders . Public Finance Review37:68-93.
5.
Binger, Brian, and Elizabeth Hoffman .1998. Microeconomics with calculus . Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.
6.
Boarnet, Marlon, and William Bogart.1996. Enterprise zones and employment: Evidence from New Jersey. Journal of Urban Economics40:198-215.
7.
Bondonio, Daniele.2002. Evaluating decentralized policies: A method to compare the performance of economic development programmes across different regions or states. Evaluation8:101-24.
8.
Bondonio, Daniele, and John Engberg.2000. Enterprise zones and local employment: Evidence from the states’ programs. Regional Science and Urban Economics30:519-49.
9.
Bondonio, Daniele, and Robert Greenbaum .2007. Do tax incentives effect local economic growth? What mean impacts miss in the analysis of enterprise zone policies. Regional Science and Urban Economics37:121-36.
10.
Bostic, Raphael, and Allen Prohofsky .2006. Enterprise zones and individual welfare: A case study of California. Journal of Regional Science46:175-203.
11.
Buss, Terry.2001. The effect of state tax incentives on economic growth and firm location decisions: An overview of the literature. Economic Development Quarterly15:90-105.
12.
Busso, Matias, and Patrick Kline.2006. Do local economic development programs work?Evidence from the federal empowerment zone program. Unpublished manuscript.
13.
Card, David, and Alan Krueger.1994. Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review84:772-84.
14.
Carlton, Dennis.1983. The location and employment choices of new firms: An econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. Review of Economics and Statistics65:440-49.
15.
Devereux, Michael, Rachel Griffith, and Helen Simpson.2007. Establishment location decisions, regional grants, and agglomeration externalities. Journal of Public Economics91:413-35.
16.
Elvery, Joel.2009. The impact of enterprise zones on resident employment: An evaluation of the enterprise zone programs of California and Florida. Economic Development Quarterly23:44-59.
17.
Evans, David.1987. Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy95:657-74.
18.
Ghosal, Vivek.1991. Demand uncertainty and the capital-labor ratio: Evidence from the U.S. manufacturing sector. Review of Economics and Statistics73:157-60.
19.
Government Accountability Office.1999. Businesses’ use of empowerment zone tax incentives: Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO/RCED-99-253, Washington, DC.
20.
Government Accountability Office.2004. Federal revitalization programs are being implemented, but data on the use of tax benefits are limited: Report to Congressional Committees. GAO-04-306, Washington, DC.
21.
Gravelle, Jane.1992. Enterprise zones: The design of tax incentives . CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service .
22.
Greenbaum, Robert, and John Engberg.2004. The impact of state enterprise zones on urban manufacturing establishments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23:315-39.
23.
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.
24.
Holmes, Thomas.1998. The effect of state policies on the location of manufacturing: Evidence from state borders. Journal of Political Economy106: 667-705.
25.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury.2004. Publication 954: Tax incentives for distressed communities . http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p954.pdf . (Accessed on 1/17/2009).
26.
Knight, Brian.2002. Endogenous federal grants and crowd-out of state government spending: Theory and evidence from the federal highway aid program . American Economic Review92:71-92.
27.
Kolko, Jed, and David Neumark.2008. Changes in the location and employment of ownership: Evidence from California. Journal of Regional Science48:717-43.
28.
Krupka, Douglas, and Douglas Noonan.2009. Empowerment zones, neighborhood change and owner occupied housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics39:386-96.
29.
Kubik, Jeffrey, and John Moran.2003. Lethal elections: Gubernatorial politics and the timing of executions. Journal of Law and Economics46:1-26.
30.
Levitt, Steven.1997. Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime. American Economic Review87:270-90.
31.
Madrian, Brigitte.1994. Employment based health insurance and job mobility: Is there evidence of job-lock? Quarterly Journal of Economics109:27-54.
32.
McGuire, Therese, and Teresa Garcia-Mila.2002. Tax incentives and the city . In Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, ed. William Gale and Janet Rothenberg Pack, 95-114. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
33.
Moore, William.2001. The economic effect of enterprise zone programs on local labor markets: A theoretical perspective. PhD Dissertation, Syracuse University.
34.
Murray, Michael.2006. Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments . Journal of Economic Perspectives20:111-32.
35.
Neumark, David, and Jed Kolko.2010. Do enterprise zones create jobs? Evidence from California’s enterprise zone program. Journal of Urban Economics68:1-19.
36.
O’Sullivan, Arthur.2009. Urban economics. New York, NY : McGraw-Hill Irwin Press.
37.
Papke, Leslie.1993. What do we know about enterprise zones? In Tax policy and the economy, Vol. 7, ed. James Poterba, 37-72. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
38.
Papke, Leslie.1994. Tax policy and urban development: Evidence from the Indiana enterprise zone program. Journal of Public Economics54:37-49.
39.
Poterba, James.1994. State responses to fiscal crises: The effects of budgetary institutions and politics. Journal of Political Economy102:799-821.
40.
Rosenthal, Stuart, and William Strange .2003. Geography, industrial organization and agglomeration. Review of Economics and Statistics85:377-93.
41.
Stock, James, and Motohiro Yogo.2005. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg, ed. Donald Andrews and James Stock, 80-108. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Wallace, Marc.2004. Congressional considerations and urban characteristics in the selection of empowerment zones and enterprise communities. Journal of Urban Affairs26:593-609.
43.
Wasylenko, Michael.1997. Taxation and economic development. New England Economic Review March/April:37-52.
