This article proposes an empirical method to evaluate decentralized economic development programmes with heterogeneous characteristics implemented in different regions or states. The evaluation design developed in the article is a comparative analysis that operationalizes differences in regional policy features and controls for exogenous factors that may affect outcomes independently from the programme intervention. The proposed method is illustrated and tested through the evaluation of the US Enterprise Zone programmes. The results of the analysis show that the proposed evaluation design is an effective tool for turning the heterogeneity of decentralized economic development programmes from a threat to the validity of the analysis into a great opportunity for testing the effectiveness of a variety of region- (or state-)specific policy implementation features.
Bartik, T.J. (1991) Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies?Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
2.
Bartik, T.J. and R. Bingham (1995) Can Economic Development Programs be Evaluated? Staff Working Paper 95-29. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
3.
Boarnet, M.G. and W.T. Bogart (1996) `Enterprise Zones and Employment: Evidence from New Jersey', Journal of Urban Economics40(2): 198-215.
4.
Bondonio, D. (2000) `Statistical Methods to Evaluate Geographically Targeted Economic Development Programs', Statistica Applicata12(2): 177-204.
5.
Bondonio, D. and J. Engberg (2000) `Enterprise Zones and Local Employment: Evidence from the States' Programs', Regional Science and Urban Economics30(5): 519-49.
6.
Bostic, R.W. (1996) Enterprise Zones and Attraction of Business and Investment: the Importance of Implementation Strategies and Program Incentives , Working Paper. Washington, DC: Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
7.
Dehejia, R.H. and S. Wahba (1998a) `Causal Effects in Non-experimental Studies: Re-evaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs', Journal of the American Statistical Association94(448): 1053-62.
8.
Dehejia, R.H. and S. Wahba (1998b) `Propensity Score Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies', National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 6829.
9.
Dowall, D.E. (1996) `An Evaluation of California's Enterprise Zone Programs', Economic Development Quarterly10(4): 352-68.
10.
Engberg, J. and R. Greenbaum (1999) The Impact of State Enterprise Zones on Urban Housing Markets, Working Paper 99-16. Pittsburgh, PA: Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University.
11.
Erickson, R.A. and S.W. Friedman (1990a) `Enterprise Zones: 1. Investment and Job Creation of State Government Programs in the United States of America', Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy8(3): 251-67.
12.
Erickson, R.A. and S.W. Friedman (1990b) `Enterprise Zones: 2. A Comparative Analysis of Zone Performance and State Government Policies', Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy8(4): 363-78.
13.
Fisher, P.S. and A.H. Peters (1998) Industrial Incentives. Competition among American States and Cities. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
14.
Greenbaum, R. (1998) An Evaluation of State Enterprise Zone Policies: Measuring the Impact on Business Decisions and Housing Market Outcomes, Doctoral Dissertation. Pittsburgh, PA: H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University.
15.
Greenbaum, R. and J. Engberg (2000) `An Evaluation of State Enterprise Zone Policies: Measuring the Impact on Urban Housing Market Outcomes', Policy Studies Review 2/3(17): 29-46.
16.
Heckman, J. and V. Hotz (1989) `Choosing among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods for Estimating the Impact of Social Programs: The Case of Manpower Training' , Journal of the American Statistical Association84(408): 862-75.
17.
Heckman, J., H. Ichimura and P. Todd (1997) `Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme', Review of Economic Studies64(4): 605-54.
18.
Heckman, J., H. Ichimura and P. Todd (1998) `Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator' , Review of Economic Studies65(2): 261-94.
19.
Papke, L.E. (1993) `What Do We Know about Enterprise Zones?', in J. M. Poterba (ed.) Tax Policy and the Economy7: 37-72. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
20.
Papke, L.E. (1994) `Tax Policy and Urban Development. Evidence from the Indiana Enterprise Zone Program', Journal of Public Economics54(1): 37-49.
21.
Rosenbaum, P. and D. Rubin (1983) `The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects', Biometrika70(1): 41-55.
22.
Rosenbaum, P. and D. Rubin (1984) `Reducing the Bias in Observational Studies using Subclassification on the Propensity Score', Journal of the American Statistical Association79: 516-24.
23.
Sheldon, A.W. and R.C. Elling (1989) `Patterns and Determinants of Enterprise Zone Success in Four States', Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Baltimore, MD .
24.
Wilder, M.G. and B.M. Rubin (1996) `Rhetoric Versus Reality: a Review of Studies on State Enterprise Zone Programs', Journal of the American Planning Association62(4): 473-91.
