The continued loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is a well-known and well-studied phenomenon that continues to be a concern to business, labor, elected officials and policymakers at all levels of government, and researchers. Yet we know relatively little about what happens in places that have lost manufacturing jobs. Have other jobs filled the vacuum, or is there a net loss of employment? If other jobs have replaced manufacturing jobs, what sectors have they been in, and how do wages in sectors where jobs have been gained compare to wages in the manufacturing sectors where jobs have been lost? What steps have the public sector, business and other sectors taken to change the industry, technological, and/or product mix of the metropolitan area economy, and how effective have those steps been? The study will focus on U.S. metropolitan areas that had concentrations of manufacturing jobs above the national average in 1990 and that lost manufacturing jobs between 1990 and 2005. It will describe the patterns of manufacturing job loss and non-manufacturing job gain (or, in a few cases, loss) that occurred in these areas. Through a set of case studies of eight metropolitan areas, it will then examine various policies and strategies by which government, business, and/or civic institutions sought to replace lost manufacturing jobs with new jobs in non-manufacturing industries.

This two-part project is a collaborative multi-year undertaking by Lincoln and GWIPP to promote research in the areas of property tax policy and administration. As a follow-up to the 2005-06 pilot project, a data collection team is compiling and classifying a wide range of material that characterizes property tax structures and processes in all fifty states to produce a "Compendium of State Property Tax Regimes." The compendium will be available as a data set, and researchers will be able to perform simple queries through an interactive web site. Key results will be presented in a series of tables, patterned after the biennial Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism , produced by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) through 1994. Plans are being made to update the compendium annually.

Under the contract, GWIPP will produce the following research papers: A Calculation of Effective Tax Rates; A Broad-Based Property Tax: Calculations and Implications; A Broad-Based Property Tax: Calculations and Implications; Tax and Expenditure Limitations (TELs) and Their Impact; The Increasing Use of Preferential Assessments to Subsidize Specific Land Uses.

A State Property Tax Policy Roundtable will be scheduled for Fall 2007 in Washington, DC. Papers written by GWIPP research faculty will be supplemented by several commissioned papers, focusing on the topic “Erosion of the Local Property Tax Base: Trends and Consequences.”

A pilot project to explore the feasibility of a new annual publication, patterned after ACIR’s Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, that would, at least partially, fill the void since it ceased publication. Prior to its demise in the mid-1990s, the US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) published a widely used and acclaimed two volume annual report entitled Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism. The report was largely a compilation and organization of data on federal, state, and local revenues and expenditures, the institutional structure through which these fiscal flows occurred, and important changes in them. Significant Features has been sorely missed by both researchers and practitioners. No other publication has taken its place. If deemed feasible, the George Washington Institute of Public Policy (GWIPP) would then prepare a proposal for an annual version of such a report, to be funded and published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and disseminated jointly by Lincoln and GWIPP.

Preparation of a report for the Brookings Institution’s “The Campaign for America’s Core Cities: Research and Policy Development” project. The paper will define “weak market cities”; develop methodologies for identifying and ranking cities along a number of indicators of performance; create a statistically-based typology for weak market cities; and explain differences among core cities in terms of their condition in 2000 and performance between 1990 and 2000.

The current phase of the project broadens the scope of the original study to further characterize the differences between "weak market" and "non-weak market" cities, develop models to uncover which characteristics may have a causal relationship with key aspects of economic and residential health, and then expand analysis to examine  additional cities within this framework.

What are the ingredients that go into making a city successful? What public policy processes, investment strategies, and political actions are required to support the ingredients for city success? Affiliates of CEOs for Cities, a network of elected and appointed officials and business leaders in American cities, are being asked these questions to provide insight on the policies that help cities achieve success and help prioritize the allocation of political energy, capital, and financial resources to promote city renewal.

Viable representation in Congress is a key goal for many citizens of the District of Columbia . Yet, the debate over representation lacks some specifics. What will be the substantive effect of representation? How will the District’s influence over Congress change and how will this change in influence alter public policies directly relevant to the District? These are questions the proposed project seeks to answer. In the project we will consider several different possible forms of District representation. We will then evaluate those forms in regard to their likely impact on policy benefits through legislation (passed or stopped) and fiscal allocation. We will also consider the impact of representation in other areas such as the congressional ombuds role, oversight of executive branch regulation, and the symbolic importance of representation.

The District of Columbia, as the capital of the United States, is in a unique set of circumstances with respect to other American cities, but it is not unique in the world. All countries have capital cities and they face many of the same problems as does Washington, DC. The object of this study is to determine what can be learned from these other cities and their relationship to their national governments that is relevant to the circumstances of Washington, DC and that will better inform the debate about the issues related to Washington's role as a capital city.

Provide a synthesis and critique of current knowledge and research on 1) the factors driving local economic growth and development and 2) the effects of state and local fiscal policy upon local economic growth and development. The report will make clear where there is clear consensus, where there is disagreement, and where research is currently lacking.

This project involves creating a research design with two components. In the first component the GWIPP team will produce a survey methodology for measuring how the American people rank order national icons – such as national monuments, federal buildings, and significant natural landmarks – in terms of importance. In the second component the GWIPP team will develop a design for exploring how to measure the impact of a major terrorist attach on public perception in four areas – national security, governance, public confidence, and economic scope and duration.

The project explores the extent to which fiscal disparities exist among local jurisdictions within different kinds of metropolitan areas and why these disparities exist. We are particularly interested in the extent of fiscal disparities among suburban jurisdictions as well as between suburban jurisdictions and central cities. We calculate disparities among local governments in a small, regionally representative set of metropolitan areas. We also explore the characteristics of metropolitan areas that are associated with greater fiscal disparities. Finally, we will discuss the policy implications of these findings

This project involves mining relevant information repositories to construct a qualitative database of the Lessons Learned from catastrophes, both man-made and natural, with an eye towards recognizing trends and patterns in problems and solutions.

To what extent and how does state government policy affect the performance of major cities within the state on a wide variety of indicators of resident well-being? The project will proceed by first identifying cities that have performed well between 1990-2000 on each of a series of 20 indicators (e.g., change in poverty rate, unemployment rate, housing affordability, crime rate, etc.). It will then model performance on each of these indicators to identify cities that performed better than the model would have predicted. Case studies will then be conducted to assess whether this better than expected performance was due to state (or city) policies directed at the state’s cities.

The project will examine recent trends in state and local revenues and expenditures and the current condition of state and local finances. In particular, it will assess the likely impact of foreseeable or potential future economic, social, political and technological changes on state and local revenues and expenditures.

What accounts for the fact that some children who grow up in very poor households in a very poor neighborhood, nonetheless succeed? To answer this question we utilize PSID, a panel database, and follow the cohort of children born between 1967-1974 into their adulthood. We examine the adult outcomes of these children – income, employment, educational attainment, etc. – and, using simultaneous equation models, test the relative impact of parental background characteristics, parental behavior, neighborhood effects, social capital, and housing tenure as a child on adult outcomes.

The report consists of four parts: The first part presents data on aggregate state and local infrastructure spending – for the nation and for the 50 individual states. For this purposes we define infrastructure to include highways (including streets and bridges), mass transit, air transportation, water transportation, water supply and sewerage. We collect and report spending trends for each category of infrastructure, including total spending by category and capital spending by category, for the most recent year available (2002). The second part examines recent trends in federal intergovernmental assistance to state and local governments for infrastructure purposes. The third part is a literature review in order to develop a general understanding of the various financing mechanism used by state and local governments to finance infrastructure spending. The concluding part is an extensive literature review of the mechanisms available to state and local governments to undertake prioritization of infrastructure needs.

Historically, business leaders have played a major role in the building, rebuilding, and public policy of major American cities. However, recent urban literature has frequently asserted that there has been increasing disengagement of corporate leaders from civic efforts. In this study we identified and documented common patterns in the changes that have occurred in corporate citizenship and executive participation in civic affairs; analyzed factors that explain these changes in the structure, management, and organizational culture of firms; conducted two intensive case studies (Baltimore and Cleveland) that describe the responses of business leaders and their peak civic organizations to changes in membership, public leadership and agendas, and economic and social circumstances; and draw lessons that can be applied by business and political leaders seeking to establish and maintain public-private coalitions that are effective in resolving critical urban problems.

As central cities have lost population relative to the rest of the state (and particularly to suburbs), their representation in state legislatures has decreased. How have cities attempted to respond to this loss of representation in an effort to retain their influence? The research explores the extent to which cities have attempted to achieve regional coalitions with their suburbs, as advocated by some analysts such as Myron Orfield who argue that cities and some of their suburbs increasingly share common interests. We selected major cities in four states (Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Ohio). Through interviews with mayoral aides, state legislators, and other actors as well as analysis of documents and roll call votes on important issues, we assessed the extent to which cities have engaged in coalitions with their suburbs and, more generally, what geographic areas or interests they do form coalitions with.

The study adapts a methodology developed by the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, to calculate disparities in the revenue capacity of local governments in the Washington,DC area. It then estimates the effect a shift to a real property tax on land only would have on these disparities. We found that the major disparities were between suburban jurisdictions; Washington D.C., the core center city in the metropolitan area, had an average revenue capacity. When revenue capacity was recalculated assuming a real property tax on land only, we found this had a slight positive effect on ameloriating differencesin revenue-rising ability.

The project reviewed the literature on sprawl and concluded that it was a poorly defined and ambiguous concept. It then defined sprawl conceptually and operationalized it as seven patterns of land use, each of which consisted of a continuum ranging from very sprawl-like to very unsprawl-like. Each of these dimensions was then operationalized so that it could be calculated for urbanized areas. As an illustration, calculations on each of the dimensions were made for 13 urbanized areas and a standardized sprawl score was calculated for each. The results were published in Housing Policy Debate (“Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept. 2001, v. 12 # 4)

During the late 1990s commentators frequently heralded the comeback of America’s cities. This project examined the extent to which cities that were distressed in the 1980s could be said to have “come back” by the year 2000. It then modeled the economic and social structural determinants of city performance between 1980-2000 and identified those cities that performed significantly better or worse than the model would have predicted. Finally, it speculated on the reasons for these divergent performances – and particularly whether city or state policy could have played a role - and suggested a strategy for pursuing research to test these speculations. A paper, “Have Central Cities Come Back” was presented at the 2004 Urban Affairs Association Conference in Washington, DC on April 2, 2004.

The project studied “urban success stories” which are defined as cities that gain the reputation of having rebounded from adversity, overcome their distressed condition, and experienced revitalization. The research evaluated the extent to which the well-being of the residents of these perceived “urban success story” cities actually improves as a result of the presumed success.

Current efforts to measure sprawl suffer from two serious problems. First, neither the Urbanized Area nor the Metropolitan Statistical Area are appropriate areas for assessing sprawl; the first underbounds the area over which sprawl might occur and the second overbounds it. The project developed and provided means of measuring an Extended Urban Area (EUA) as a more appropriate unit of geography for measuring sprawl. Second, most measures of sprawl include all land in the area (including bodies of water), regardless of whether the land is developable. Using satellite imagery from the USGS National land cover Data Base, the project calculated sprawl measures after excluding developable land and compared these measures for several EUAs to the same measures including all land. Important differences were found on some dimensions. An article based on this, “The Fundamental Should be Considered,” is forthcoming in Professional Geographer.

Researcher(s) completed detailed interviews with the primary policy officials responsible for growth management and affordable workforce housing in 37 of the fastest growing counties, including county managers, county executives, and chief county planners. Conversations with these officials show that much of their work continues to occur within planning tools and laws developed before rapid growth began, and that this situation increases their work load and reduces their capacity to respond in a comprehensive and strategic manner. These rapidly growing areas – with an onslaught of governance, fiscal and commercial decisions on land use – overtake the available community resources able to be devoted to handling growth and ensuring adequate housing supply. While factors such as sufficient amounts of developable land clearly deflate the immediate magnitude of growth and housing problems, the few counties with cohesive urban management plans better deploy resources and prepare for their fast-growth future.

America Online, Community Foundation for the National Capital Region, Meyer Foundation, Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP. The 2001 Potomac Index charted the Washington region’s progress on a series of indicators grouped around five major themes. Research indicators show that the Greater Washington region has a strong economy, a highly educated population, and an extensive educational, philanthropic and nonprofit sector. It lags in performance on other indicators with a shortage of affordable housing, poor water quality in the Anacostia River, significant traffic congestion, poor air quality, and consumption of land in excess of population growth. A survey conducted for the Index showed that four out of five residents rate the region as an excellent, very good, or good place to live.

The project measured sprawl on seven dimensions for a sample of 50 of the largest US Extended Urban Areas. It then applied factor analysis to derive a set of factors combining the dimensions and calculated the “sprawl” scores for each of the 50 areas for each of the factors. A paper, “Verifying Sprawl’s Distinct Dimensions,” was presented at the 2004 meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Washington, DC, on April 2, 2004.