Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
Senior Economist at Upjohn Institute, fan of "place-based policies" (or at least some of them!). https://www.upjohn.org/about/upjohn-team/staff/timothy-j-bartik
Timothy J. Bartik is an American economist who specializes in regional economics, public finance, urban economics, labor economics, and labor demand policies. He is a senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Michigan. .. more
Economics
57%
Education
26%
Underlying lesson is that sensible economic development policies depends upon targeting distressed places, and coordinating with workforce development and housing policies that will target jobs and allow for needed housing.
At the extremes, targeting highly distressed places & having housing supply accommodate growth can increase benefit-cost ratio > sixfold compared to targeting booming places with restrictive housing supply -- BC ratio is 4.27 in former place vs. 0.66 in latter place.
If the housing price increase due to population is high, BCt ratio is only 1.32, and BC ratio almost doubles to 2.56 if housing price effect is low. Higher housing price response chokes off job growth, & transfers benefits from workers to property owners.
In addition, project benefits vary with whether housing prices go up relatively little or a lot with population boosts. Higher price responses drive up local costs, which reduces multiplier effects, and skews benefits towards property owners and away from boosting earnings per cap of local workers.
For this project, its benefit-cost ratio in highly distressed place is 3.45, because job creation has larger effects on boosting employment rates. In booming place, BC ratio only 1.10, because new jobs mostly just boost population -- benefits are lower and skewed more towards property.
In the essay, I present some simulations showing that benefit-cost ratio of econ dev projects varies greatly with whether area is distressed (has low baseline employment rate) or the area has better workforce programs to target jobs at non-employed. Benefit-cost ratio can plausibly vary threefold.
Many past development policies, such as bulldozing neighborhoods for Urban Renewal or highways, failed because even if they "worked", mainly aided property owners rather than original residents. If we want broad support for development, it must boost real earnings per cap of original residents.
INCENTIVES: SMART LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY Can Gain Support from The Abundance Movement – Site Selection Magazine
siteselection.com
I have a new essay on place-based economic development policies as "broadly-shared abundance policy" at Site Selection magazine: siteselection.com/incentives-s... Key pt: econ dev policies can boost abundance IF targeted at distressed areas/non-employed, & if local housing policies accommodate.
These findings are policy relevant because RxKids has been expanded to other Michigan cities, including Kalamazoo. And recent state of Michigan budget adds $270 million to further expand program. So issue of what it does for all Michigan residents, not just direct beneficiaries, is important.
Also, although given Flint context, transfer benefits are highly concentrated on lowest income quintile. But the program's benefits are broadly spread by increased spending and increased jobs and employment rates to all income quintiles, and particular bottom 60% of income distribution.
Our model assumes that the program's cash benefits otherwise would not provide Michigan benefits. But even if we switch to tax financing, benefits in higher state per capita incomes would be 1.78 times the program's transfer costs.
Core findings: depending upon model used, effect on total state personal income is 60% to 300% greater than the direct cash payments. Per capita income goes up by 2.4 times the cost of the program. Labor market benefits from job creation are actually greater than direct benefits of transfers.
RxKids provides $1,500 during pregnancy, and $500 per month for first year of child's life. Other research is looking at benefits for child development, etc. -- our research focuses on regional economic benefits from this injection of cash into local economy.
A new analysis by the Upjohn Institute finds that the Rx Kids program delivers measurable economic benefits to families and the broader local economy in Flint, Michigan. Read the full report
www.upjohn.org/research-hig...
www.upjohn.org/research-hig...
So, what does our study find? The RxKids program is a program that started in Flint, which provides universal benefits during pregnancy & the first year of a child's life. We find that the "demand-side" effects of the program are sufficient to provide sizable spillover benefits.
Reposted by Timothy J. Bartik
A new analysis by the Upjohn Institute finds that the Rx Kids program delivers measurable economic benefits to families and the broader local economy in Flint, Michigan. Read the full report
www.upjohn.org/research-hig...
www.upjohn.org/research-hig...
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 21
thehill.com
Useful article by @patricktuohey.bsky.social at @thehill.com regarding Tulsa Remote, in part drawing on my research on Tulsa Remote. thehill.com/opinion/fina.... As article says, part of reason why Tulsa Remote can have success is that it is cheaper per job induced than typical business incentives.
Reposted by Timothy J. Bartik
A place-based economic development strategy to foster rural U.S. prosperity
How a three-pronged, place-based strategy to spur economic growth in rural communities across the country boasts proven success.
equitablegrowth.org
Today, @equitablegrowth.bsky.social released their second series of papers on the rise of right-wing populism.
My contribution is a policy piece that provides an affirmative vision for investment in rural America. (1/9) equitablegrowth.org/a-place-base...
My contribution is a policy piece that provides an affirmative vision for investment in rural America. (1/9) equitablegrowth.org/a-place-base...
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 3
As my two papers attest, I read "Stuck" as well as the Klein/Thompson book and the Dunkelman book, so I am well aware of Appelbaum's arguments -- I quote him, and specifically address what he is arguing.
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 3
Thanks for the reference!
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 2
But I don't think the consequent out-migration, due to lower housing costs in booming places, should be argued to on net HELP distressed places that lack jobs. & if there are high social costs of high non-employment, then place-based programs can make sense if cheap enough per job created.
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 2
I do not argue that out-migration should be "taxed" or otherwise restricted. Or subsidized for that matter. Of course, we should have more efficient housing supply policies everywhere, including in booming places, which will as a side-effect increase out-migration from distressed to booming places
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 2
I would agree that it is more difficult to turn around some distressed places than others. One size does not fit all .
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 2
"But I believe that in many distressed places, an appropratie strategy [can work] with sufficient investment resources....Many distressed [places], if...provided TVA-level resources of $380 per capita per year for 10 years...[could] dramaticallyl change the place's long-run... trajectory."
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 2
to failures of leadership [and] in other cases, even the most creative leader may be unable to come up with the right strategy for some particular distressed place.
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 2
[at a cost of $100K times the number of jobs]? No, I am not claiming that. Revitalizing a distressed [place] requires a sensible strategy based on the [place's] particular strengths and weaknesses....In some cases,...policymakes will be unable to come up w/ a sound strategy...[due sometimes]
Tim Bartik
@timbartik.bsky.social
· Sep 2
But I add the following (p. 38): "I don't want to overclaim...Estimates support that...customized business services or neighborhood services can create higher employment rates at a cost of about $100K per extra job. Am I claiming that any distresed [place] can [reach any desired] job target...