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
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.
November 10, 2025 at 3:12 PM
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.
November 10, 2025 at 3:12 PM
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.
November 10, 2025 at 3:12 PM
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.
November 10, 2025 at 3:12 PM
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.
November 10, 2025 at 3:12 PM
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.
November 10, 2025 at 3:12 PM
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.
November 10, 2025 at 3:12 PM
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.
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.
October 30, 2025 at 7:41 PM
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.
October 30, 2025 at 7:41 PM
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.
October 30, 2025 at 7:41 PM
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.
October 30, 2025 at 7:41 PM
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.
October 30, 2025 at 7:41 PM
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.
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.
September 3, 2025 at 8:05 PM
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.
Thanks for the reference!
September 3, 2025 at 11:53 AM
Thanks for the reference!
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.
September 2, 2025 at 11:31 PM
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.
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
September 2, 2025 at 11:31 PM
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
I would agree that it is more difficult to turn around some distressed places than others. One size does not fit all .
September 2, 2025 at 5:41 PM
I would agree that it is more difficult to turn around some distressed places than others. One size does not fit all .
"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."
September 2, 2025 at 5:40 PM
"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."
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.
September 2, 2025 at 5:40 PM
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.
[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]
September 2, 2025 at 5:40 PM
[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]
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...
September 2, 2025 at 5:40 PM
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...