In any case, I’ve been doing a bit of writing about people-place issues from empiricla and philosophical POV’s. Two empirical pieces I have in JPER and in Urban Affairs Review examine place-based investments in LA, and compare them to the EITC. Admittedly, it’s a bit of an unfair comparison, but it is revealing to know that each year the EITC channels roughly $150 million into LA’s Enterprise Zones (Places). And this is directly to “people.” Now, what happens to all of that investment in people? Surely it must lead to some kind of development. In a 2007 Urban Affairs Review piece I tested the economic development effects of the EITC. While not a HUGE job creation policy tool, there were certainly detectable effects on the retail job base in Enterprise Zones as well as other poor areas. All that to say what I have tried to articulate in a Policy Studies Journal piece (I think 2004). They should be seen as complementary – as one of your other respondents has noted. This is not only because we’re never going to get rid of one or the other, but because (and this is what many of the effiency-oriented analysts overlook) is that they exist within political decision-making structures. Think about it this way – what does a mayor or city-council member get from the EITC? Not a whole lot – at least politically. On the other hand, a targeted neighborhood tax benefit can go a long way towards getting re-elected. My intention in examining the economic development effects of the EITC is to show that mayors might actually state that support for state-level EITC’s are likely to lead to local job development (in addition to gains against poverty). The reality is that parties and administrations change – as do the antipoverty policies they promote. The important thing is to keep a range of viable antipoverty policy alternatives that can appeal to this range of policy makers.

I’d be interested to hear any thoughts you or others have on this, as I think it’s kind of an under-explored area….

Happy holidays out there in I-land.
Jim