Working Paper: NBER ID: w20049
Authors: David Neumark; Helen Simpson
Abstract: Place-based policies commonly target underperforming areas, such as deteriorating downtown business districts and disadvantaged regions. Principal examples include enterprise zones, European Union Structural Funds, and industrial cluster policies. Place-based policies are rationalized by various hypotheses in urban and labor economics, such as agglomeration economies and spatial mismatch - hypotheses that entail market failures and often predict overlap between poor economic performance and disadvantaged residents. The evidence on enterprise zones is very mixed. We need to know more about what features of enterprise zone policies make them more effective or less effective, who gains and who loses from these policies, and how we can reconcile the existing findings. Some evidence points to positive benefits of infrastructure expenditure, and also investment in higher education and university research - likely because of the public-goods nature of these policies. However, to better guide policy, we need to know more about what policies create self-sustaining longer-run gains.
Keywords: place-based policies; enterprise zones; agglomeration economies; spatial mismatch; economic performance
JEL Codes: H23; H71; J23; J38; R12
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| enterprise zone policies (R38) | positive economic outcomes (D78) |
| infrastructure investment (H54) | positive economic outcomes (D78) |
| higher education (I23) | positive economic outcomes (D78) |
| certain features of place-based policies (R38) | enhanced effectiveness (O36) |
| place-based policies (R28) | positive externalities (D62) |
| positive externalities (D62) | improved job access (J68) |
| improved job access (J68) | increased employment opportunities (J68) |
| place-based policies (R28) | adverse effects on non-targeted areas (I19) |