[主题活动] 【CASK EFFECT】0910F阅读全方位锻炼--越障【SCI】 1-18 [复制链接]

tuziduidui
UID: 2599524

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 97
寄托币: 4754
注册时间: 2009-2-7
精华: 0
帖子: 60

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-31 11:10:59 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 tuziduidui 于 2009-7-31 11:18 编辑

【CASK EFFECT】0910G阅读能力基础自测（速度、难度、深度、越障、真题、RAM）
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=910464&highlight

【CASK EFFECT】0910F阅读全方位锻炼--越障【SCI】汇总贴
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-982020-1-1.html

规则：0 u, r. g$ C/ d+ [4 f5 C

我每天贴出1000字左右的一篇文字7 j) N0 Q, Q- ]( V4 E

没有别的要求，只要大家坚持读完就可以

如果你能坚持一个月，你会发现自己的阅读进化了~
[注]9 K7 C8 w4 {" L
1、直接在电脑屏幕面前做，虽然GRE阅读是在纸上考，但是这个过程会遏制你做笔记，同时给你的阅读造成视觉障碍，也就是把难度训练和抗干扰训练同步结合，增加效率（初期会很累，但是既然大家想要成为高手，那么就别对自己太温柔）

Today's Topic:Empowerment Zones, neighborhood change and owner-occupied housing

Winnick(1966) lays out a very strong case against place-based policy. The primary justification for spatially targeted economic development programs lies in the persistence of concentrations of poverty, mainly in urban areas. Kain, 1968 John Kain, Housing segregation, negro employment and metropolitan decentralization, Quarterly Journal of Economics 82 (1968), pp. 175–197. Full Text via CrossRefKain(1968) framed the problem in terms of the spatial mismatch hypothesis(SMH), which posited that blacks were prevented from commuting or moving to the suburbs, where their labor was demanded, and that low-skill jobs were prevented from moving into the central city, where the low-skill black population lived.The spatial mismatch of low-skill labor supply and low-skill labor demand causes the location-constrained inner-city residents to experience adverse labor market outcomes. Since that seminal paper, spatially targeted policies have become popular at many levels of government. While the SMH enjoyed several decades of empirical support, more recent work taking into account the endogeneity of residence choice has cast some doubt on the causal relationship between spatial mismatch and poor central city labor market outcomes.2 Whether the SMH holds or not, it is widely accepted by policy-makers and spatially targeted economic incentives can be seen as an attempt to correct for the cost differentials that keep businesses from locating in the inner city.

Even in the absence of a causal effect of spatial mismatch, local jurisdictions may wish to spur development within their boundaries to increase tax receipts. It is not far fetched to believe that localized tax incentives could be beneficial for local jurisdictions, even if they had no effect on the indigenous population. Bartik (1991) reviewed the literature on the effects of local taxes on business activity and found that the elasticity of business activity with respect to local tax rates lays somewhere between − 1 and − 3. If this is true, decreasing local taxes (even in a small section of the jurisdiction) could be revenue-enhancing for local governments.3 These large elasticities suggest that the effects of local tax incentives may be large and that enterprise zones may bean effective policy tool from a local perspective.

Research examining the effects of spatially targeted incentives has concentrated on the various state programs. While many studies have found that enterprise zones have faired well in terms of employment, Boarnet (2001) points to the many methodological pitfalls inherent in straight comparisons of zones to non-zone areas. More rigorous evaluations of the state programs have not been lacking.An extensive review of this literature can be found in Peters and Fisher (2002). They find that while early econometric studies of the effects of state enterprise zones usually found positive results (e.g., [Erickson and Friedman, 1990], [Papke, 1993] and [Papke, 1994]), more recent results have been much less favorable.4 Peters and Fisher offer several possible explanations for this set of findings. They suggest that the tax incentives are not generous enough to overcome the substantial disadvantages associated with the targeted areas. They also suggest that the administration of zones, which often put conditions on the incentives that exist, may reduce their attractiveness. Bondonio and Greenbaum (2007) suggest that the insignificant net effects mask countervailing positive effects on new firms and negative effects on existing firms (who exit the zone), along with a number of other interesting results. Lynch and Zax (in press) look at establishment-level data, finding little effect for the state program in Colorado. They suggest that the benefits of the program likely fall on immobile factors like commercial real estate. Landers (2006) finds similar results for the Ohio state program.

The literature examining the effects of the federal Empowerment Zone program is much less developed, but growing. It is important to note that selection into the EZ program differed substantially from selection into state programs. In selecting federal Empowerment Zones, HUD required an application process. Applicant zones were evaluated not only on the demographic and economic “needs” of the zones, but also the expected efficacy of the applicants' planned use of program funds. (Wallace, 2003) and (Wallace, 2004) examines this process, while Greenbaum and Bondonio (2004) examine how the process has changed over the three rounds of the program. (Oakley et al., 2006), (Oakley and Tsao, 2007a) and (Oakley and Tsao, 2007b) use propensity score matching,as in much of the recent literature on the state programs, to examine the effect of Chicago's and some other Empowerment Zones on a variety of socio-economic neighborhood outcomes. While they find some localized effects (e.g.on poverty and related variables in the case of Chicago's zone), they characterize the effects as underwhelming. When pooling four zones (in Chicago,Baltimore, Detroit and New York City), the intervention had no significant effects on poverty, unemployment or average household income.

Although most of the studies mentioned above examine job creation or employment outcomes, our primary variable of interest will be the value of owner-occupied housing in a neighborhood. We will also be examining the effect of EZ status on employment outcomes of neighborhood residents, yet this more traditional variable takes a secondary position in that we examine only the direct effects of the program on employment. This focus makes sense because the Empowerment Zone program is supposed to improve neighborhoods along a variety of dimensions (McCarthy, 1998), not just improve employment outcomes.As such, the general quality of life in a neighborhood should be improved by the program. If the program is successful in making a neighborhood more attractive, the price of housing should increase ([Rosen, 1974] and [Bartik and Smith, 1987]). Our empirical approach allows us to examine the effects of EZ status on many other variables of more traditional concern (employment outcomes, poverty, etc.), but housing values will remain our focus.

Two recent studies that look at the Empowerment Zone program direct effects on a national level are Hanson (2008)and Busso and Kline (2008). Busso and Kline (2008) use propensity score matching techniques to assess the causal, direct effects on a variety of neighborhood characteristics. They find significant, robust and generally positive effects on neighborhood racial makeup, employment, educational attainment poverty and home values. Hanson (2008) uses an instrumental variables approach to address the endogeneity of zone designation. He finds evidence of endogeneity amongst his sample of zone and rejected zone applicants, but is not willing to take a strong position on the final direct effects. When controlling for endogeneity, he finds no statistically significant effect on employment,although he finds very large effects on property values in some specifications.

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册