Hugo D. Asencio, Fynnwin Prager, Jose N. Martinez, John Tamura
{"title":"The impact of local government economic development programs on city-level entrepreneurial activity: evidence from Southern California","authors":"Hugo D. Asencio, Fynnwin Prager, Jose N. Martinez, John Tamura","doi":"10.1108/jepp-02-2022-0038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper examines the relationship between government economic development programming and entrepreneurial activity, by examining evidence in Southern California cities. While numerous studies explore this relationship between government institutions and entrepreneurship at the level of countries and states, significant questions remain at the level of city government, and the influence of local government economic development programs on city-level entrepreneurial activity.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses regression analysis of data from all 215 Southern California cities to decompose the complex relationships between economic development programming and different types of entrepreneurial activity.FindingsResults suggest startups are attracted to cities with higher crime rates, more diversity, and older populations, yet not those with higher levels of economic development programming. There is evidence that some types of economic development programming may influence entrepreneurship, especially for the level of minority-owned businesses.Originality/valueThe paper makes three important contributions to the literature. First, it is among the first to use local (city-level) entrepreneurship as an outcome variable to measure the effect of government economic development programming. Many scholars have instead chosen to look at outcomes relating to general economic growth (e.g. new jobs) rather than outcomes specific to local entrepreneurship. Second, it explores city-wide entrepreneurial activity with respect to numerous measures, such as start-ups, minority and female ownership, and self-employment. Third, it examines the potential influence of economic development programming, both on aggregate and decomposed into economic development program clusters.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-02-2022-0038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
PurposeThis paper examines the relationship between government economic development programming and entrepreneurial activity, by examining evidence in Southern California cities. While numerous studies explore this relationship between government institutions and entrepreneurship at the level of countries and states, significant questions remain at the level of city government, and the influence of local government economic development programs on city-level entrepreneurial activity.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses regression analysis of data from all 215 Southern California cities to decompose the complex relationships between economic development programming and different types of entrepreneurial activity.FindingsResults suggest startups are attracted to cities with higher crime rates, more diversity, and older populations, yet not those with higher levels of economic development programming. There is evidence that some types of economic development programming may influence entrepreneurship, especially for the level of minority-owned businesses.Originality/valueThe paper makes three important contributions to the literature. First, it is among the first to use local (city-level) entrepreneurship as an outcome variable to measure the effect of government economic development programming. Many scholars have instead chosen to look at outcomes relating to general economic growth (e.g. new jobs) rather than outcomes specific to local entrepreneurship. Second, it explores city-wide entrepreneurial activity with respect to numerous measures, such as start-ups, minority and female ownership, and self-employment. Third, it examines the potential influence of economic development programming, both on aggregate and decomposed into economic development program clusters.
期刊介绍:
Institutions – especially public policies – are a significant determinant of economic outcomes; entrepreneurship and enterprise development are often the channel by which public policies affect economic outcomes, and by which outcomes feed back to the policy process. The Journal of Entrepreneurship & Public Policy (JEPP) was created to encourage and disseminate quality research about these vital relationships. The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of the political discourse about entrepreneurship and development policies. JEPP publishes two issues per year and welcomes: Empirically oriented academic papers and accepts a wide variety of empirical evidence. Generally, the journal considers any analysis based on real-world circumstances and conditions that can change behaviour, legislation, or outcomes, Conceptual or theoretical papers that indicate a direction for future research, or otherwise advance the field of study, A limited number of carefully and accurately executed replication studies, Book reviews. In general, JEPP seeks high-quality articles that say something interesting about the relationships among public policy and entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and economic development, or all three areas. Scope/Coverage: Entrepreneurship, Public policy, Public policies and behaviour of economic agents, Interjurisdictional differentials and their effects, Law and entrepreneurship, New firms; startups, Microeconomic analyses of economic development, Development planning and policy, Innovation and invention: processes and incentives, Regional economic activity: growth, development, and changes, Regional development policy.