A New Way of Revitalizing Distressed Urban Communities? Assessing the Impact of the Federal Empowerment Zone Program

Abstract

The Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Initiative of 1993 offered targeted funding and tax incentives to distressed urban and rural communities. This initiative required a community-involvement component, setting it apart from more traditional economic development initiatives of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Using reports required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and census data, this study examines the programmatic emphases of four of the original six urban zones and evaluates the overall impact of zone programs on socioeconomic trends. These trends are evaluated by matching zone-designated census tracts to nonzone tracts through a propensity-score matching model using 1990 census data. Trends in poverty and other socioeconomic outcomes are measured by 1990-2000 change at the census tract level for individual zones, as well as across all zones using a series of fixed-effect models. Findings indicate that community building and involvement initiatives received the least amount of funding. Traditional economic development programs received the most emphasis but this did not translate into positive socioeconomic outcomes. With the exception of a few isolated incidences where individual zones fared better than comparison areas, zone initiatives had little impact.

Do spatially targeted redevelopment programs spillover?

“…4 The most robust finding, shown by Krupka and Noonan (2009), Hanson (2009), and Busso et al (2010), is that the EZ increased local property values in an economically and statistically significant way. Oakley and Tsao (2006) find that some EZ areas experienced reduced poverty and unemployment, but overall they find no statistically significant positive outcomes for zone residents. Busso et al (2010) report as much as a 19% increase in jobs available to zone residents; however, they find no measurable effect on wages.…”

Big Society and community: lessons from the 1998-2011 New Deal for Communities Programme in England

“…From the mid 1960s onwards, both Conservative and Labour governments instigated initiatives to improve conditions evident in English cities 1 . The articulation of, and implications arising from, this strand of urban policy are well documented (Kintrea, 2007;Shaw and Robinson, 2010), and parallel similar developments in the United States (Oakley andTsao, 2006), andEurope (van Gent, Musterd andOstendorf, 2009). A number of principles characterised English regeneration programmes.…”

The Impact of Round II Urban Empowerment Zones on Local Communities

“…The recent literature tends to focus on lessons from state enterprise zones (e.g., Papke, 1994;Boarnet and Bogart, 1996;Bondonio and Engberg, 2000) or outcomes from the original six Round I EZs (e.g., Rubin, 1994;Peters and Fisher, 2002;Oakley and Tsao, 2006;Busso and Kline, 2008). In regard to the EZs, researchers frequently ask the question, "Do they work?"…”

“…For the most part, EZ researchers have evaluated the program's effects on poverty, unemployment, and housing values, with mixed results (see Peters and Fisher, 2002;Krupka and Noonan, 2009;Busso and Kline, 2008;Oakley and Tsao, 2006 (Rich and Stoker, 2010).…”

“…Most of the existing program evaluations, including reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), focus mainly on the original six Round I Urban EZs (e.g. Busso and Kline, 2008;Hyman, 1998;Davila 2004;Oakley and Tsao, 2006;and Hebert et. al., 2001).…”