Comparing State Enterprise Zone Programs: Variations in Structure and Coverage

Abstract

This article develops a framework to classify and compare state administered enterprise zone programs based on survey data from state program administrators. Three themes are described as having led to the design and implementation of individual state programs: economic theory, political theory, and programmatic experience. From these themes, seven key dimensions are identify ed, within which state programs can be expected to vary. The analysis measures the variation among states' programs within these dimensions and assesses the usefulness of the framework developed here as a guide to comprehensive evaluation of individual and comparative program performance.

Future Directions for Federal Urban Policy

“…As state and local management capacity is translated into program control, the locus for allocational decisions will become more decentralized. This will enhance program diversity, as is already seen in the state enterprise zone programs (Brintnall & Green, 1988). It may also heighten conflict as outsider groups discover they must fight redistributive battles at the local as well as the national level.…”

“…Few state programs have implemented enterprise zone programs along lines implied by the original concept, which discouraged application of governmental subsidies or active governmental management of zone activities. Instead most package traditional subsidies in new ways (Brintnall & Green, 1988;Bendick & Rasmussen, 1986).…”

“…This improved local capacity-the emergence of the government itself as a meaningful component in local policymaking-has been observed on many fronts: local budgeting and fiscal practices, economic development and tax deal-making , program management, and policy analysis. The capacity of state governments to participate in urban policy development and management is also seen as greatly enhanced (Matzer, 1986;Elazar, 1986;Judd & Ready, 1986;Nenno, 1986;Brintnall & Green, 1988;Nathan & Doolittle, 1987;United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1986). Enhanced local capacity, incidentally, is not a recent discovery .…”

Underlying patterns in a current economic development model

“…Connecticut's incentives require industrial development as well as increases in employment. As Brintnall and Green (1988) conclude, 'State enterprise zones are fundamentally different from each other -in management style, program goals, etc. But these differences are not superficially apparent and may not even be recognized by the officials in the states involved' (p. 66).…”

Linking Implementation and Evaluation through Program Monitoring

“…Since they vary considerably in their economic problems and the foci chosen for economic development, state EZ legislation displays a wide spectrum of approaches (e.g. Green & Brintnall, 1987;Brintnall & Green, 1988). Nevertheless, they share common themes and programmatic elements that allow for some generalizations.…”