Document Actions
Sunday II: Just to clarify
posted at 2009-02-22 19:07 | Last modified 2009-02-22 19:07
Brent Lane with UNC’s Center for Competitive Economies has asked that I clarify what I said about his presentation on Economic Development in NC. You can read our email exchange on the topic here, but to sum up (I think): yes, most new jobs are established in urban areas, and yes, most new jobs in urban areas are filled by non-residents, and yes, most incentive dollars are going to urban counties. But the correlation isn’t officially there yet.
"[The data] strongly suggest (but don't prove) that non-NC residents are the primary beneficiaries of new job creation in NC's metro areas, which are the locations of nearly all of NC new higher-wage jobs. [snip]
It is correct that our NC incentives research has shown that the majority of incentives have gone to NC's more prosperous, primarily urban counties. To the extent that companies receiving those incentives create new jobs (which in most instances we found to not be the case) one might assume that jobs created in metro areas by incented firms will follow the trend of hiring non-residents. However, that is an assumption not yet substantiated by our research.”
Lane went on to say that part of the reason they haven’t been able to establish what percentage of incentivized jobs go to NC residents is because the Dept. of Commerce won’t always release those numbers for discretionary grants like JDIG and One NC - although Lane stresses that Commerce does everything it can to help him obtain those numbers elsewhere when feasible.
I emailed Commerce Friday morning about their rationale for not releasing those stats. I haven’t heard back yet, but I’ll catch you up when I do. Meantime, Lane and his team will be back on Jones St. this week for another presentation on incentives – and he says this one’s likely to be viewed as more upbeat. So stay tuned.
Comments? Drop me a line.
